Surendra Narayan Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15187 of 2014 ====================================================== Surendra Narayan Choudhary S/o Late Hari Badan Choudhary, R/o villageKharik Tola, Kathela, P.O.- Kharik Bazar, P.S.- Naugachia, DistrictBhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Director-cum-Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.

The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur 4.

The Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Secretariat Building, North Block, Vijay Path, Delhi 5.

The Under Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of India, Fighter Division, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi 6.

The Pay and Accounts Officer, (Pension and Misc.) Ministry of Home Affairs, 2/10 Jam Nagar House, New Delhi ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Gupta Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocates For the State :

Mr. Prashant Kumar, AC to SC-05 For the Union of India : Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, learned CGC for the Union of India.

2. From perusal of the order dated 19.02.2026 it appears that learned counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court that the sole petitioner has died and he seeks some more time for filing substitution petition in the year 2016 itself. On the last week when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for

Patna High Court CWJC No.15187 of 2014(3) dt.20-02-2025 2/2 the petitioner seeks pass over the case and today when the matter was called out, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some more time for filing substitution petition.

3. It appears that the legal heirs of the original writ petitioner is not interested to pursue the present case and despite of a direction of this Court which was passed in the year 2016 itself, the legal heirs of the original writ petitioner has not filed any substitution petition as yet.

4. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no other option to dismiss the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U