Balanand Jha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.716 of 2017 ====================================================== Balanand Jha Son of Late Krishna Nand Jha, Resident of village - Kakwarah, P.S. and District Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Patna 2.

The State Transport Authority Bihar, Patna through its Secretary 3.

The Chairman, State Transport Authority Bihar, Patna Old Secretariat, Patna 4.

The Principal Secretary, Department of State Transport Authority, Bisheshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road 5.

The Secretary Cum State Transport Commissioner Visheshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna - 1 6.

Additional Secretary, State Transport Authority, Bisheshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 1 7.

Sri Amrendra Kumar, Son of Sri R.D. Rai, C/o Shri Brahamdeo Ram, Resident of Diggi Khurd, Hazipur, District - Vaishali ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Raghwendra Kumar-SC-22 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER 18-11-2024

1. The Writ petition is filed for quashing the order bearing Memo No. 42 of 1994 Parivahan dated 25.04.2016 and to direct the Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna/respondent No. 4 to withdraw respondent No. 7, Sri Amrendra Kumar being private Member of the State Transport Authority, Bihar, Patna and as he is a person

Patna High Court CWJC No.716 of 2017(3) dt.18-11-2024 2/2 having financial interest in transport business especially of his own brothers and relatives who are in transport business and have number of permits in the State of Bihar granted by the State Transport Authority, Regional Transport Authority of the State.

2. During course of argument, it was brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No. 7 now is not the Member of the Board. Therefore, the Writ petition has become infructuous.

3. Recording the same, the Writ application is dismissed as infructuous.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) vinita/- U