Patna High CourtCWJC/390/2015disposed

Nanhe Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-01-23Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.390 of 2015 ====================================================== Nanhe Ram Son of Late Sajjan, resident of Chhota Telpa, P.S.- Chapra Town, District- Chapra .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Chapra Nagar Parishad through its Chairman, Chapra

4. The Chairman, Chapra Nagar Parishad, Chapra

5. The Executive Officer, Chapra Nagar Parishad, Chapra .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyan Prakash For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to AAG-9 Mr. Indu Bhushan, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-01-2017 Heard Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC to AAG-9 as well as Sri Indu Bhushan, learned counsel for Respondent nos. 3 to 5/ Chapra Nagar Parishad, Chapra.

The present writ petition was filed with a prayer to direct the Respondents i.e. Respondent nos. 3 to 5 to take steps for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his mother, namely, Smt. Keshari Devi @ Keshari Devi, who died in harness on 27.05.2011.

At the very outset, Sri Indu Bhushan, learned counsel for the Respondent/ Nagar Parishad, Chapra, on

Patna High Court CWJC No.390 of 2015 (2) dt.23-01-2017 2/2 instruction of Respondent no.5/ Executive Officer, Chapra Nagar Parishad, namely, Sri Anjay Kumar Rai submits that the Respondents are taking steps for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground and appointment letter is likely to be issued within a period of six weeks itself.

In view of submission made by Sri Indu Bhushan, learned counsel for the Respondent/Nagar Parishad, Chapra, as per specific instruction of Respondent no.5, which suggests that the appointment letter is going to be issued in favour of the petitioner within six weeks, no purpose would be served to keep the writ petition pending.

In view of submission made by Sri Indu Bhushan, learned counsel for Respondent no.5, the writ petition stands disposed of (Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U