← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/8302/2013dismissed

Rajeev Ranjan v. The Union Of India And ORS

2017-01-18Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8302 of 2013 ====================================================== Rajeev Ranjan Son of Late Shiv Narain Singh, Resident of G-7, Gama - 1, Greater Noida, P.S. - Greater Noida, District - Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union Of India Through The Director Freight Marketing, Ministry Of Railway, (Railway Board) Rail Bhawan , New Delhi - 110001

2. The Director Freight Marketing, Ministry Of Railway, (Railway Board) Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001

3. The Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, B-Block, Dighi Hajipur, District - Vaishali (Bihar)

4. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Sonepur (Herein After Called As Railway Administration) .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-01-2017 On 13.01.2017, when the matter was called out no one was present on behalf of the petitioner. The Court has suo moto adjourned the case. While adjourning the matter, this Court made it clear that if the counsel for the petitioner will remain absent on the next date, the Court will pass necessary order.

2.

Even today, learned counsel for the petitioner is not present.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8302 of 2013 (4) dt.18-01-2017 2/2 3.

Learned counsel for the Railway submitted that the petitioner was granted the contract for leasing of parcel van for three years, the period of contract is already over in the year 2013 itself, which is apparent from the letter dated 29.03.2010, wherein it has been mentioned that the contract for leasing will commence on 29.03.2010 and it will remain valid up to 28.03.2013 for the period of three years.

4.

As the period of contract is already over, this writ application has now become infructuous. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed as having become infructuous. (Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- U