Basudev Rishideo And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3113 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16600 of 2004 ====================================================== 1.

BASUDEV RISHIDEO SON OF BAHURI RISHIDEO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- REBAHI, P.S. NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA 2.

RAVI RISHIDEO SON OF BAHURI RISHIDEO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- REBAHI, P.S. NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

THE COLLECTOR, ARARIA, DISTRICT- ARARIA 3.

THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, ARARIA, DISTRICT- ARARIA 4.

THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, FORBESGANJ 5.

ANARBATI DEVI WIFE OF LATE DULLICHAND BHAGAT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HARIPUR DAK, P.O. HARIPUR DAK, P.S. FORBESGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA 6.

AJOY BHAGAT SON OF LATE DULLICHAND BHAGAT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HARIPUR DAK, P.O. HARIPUR DAK, P.S. FORBESGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA 7.

GHANSHYAM BHAGAT SON OF LATE DULLICHAND BHAGAT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HARIPUR DAK, P.O. HARIPUR DAK, P.S. FORBESGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Farooque Moazzam, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. RAJEEV KR. SINGH GP15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 13-10-2017 This application has been filed for restoration of C.W.J.C. No.16600 of 2004 which was dismissed for noncompliance of the peremptory order dated 20th of February, 2008.

The matter is listed in view of non-compliance with certain orders passed by the Court and even though the matter is pending since 2011, more than six years have passed, but the

Patna High Court MJC No.3113 of 2011(3) dt.13-10-2017 2/2 petitioner has not complied with the order of the office and the defects pointed out by the office have not been rectified. Records indicate that earlier also the writ petition was dismissed, but it was restored in view of certain orders passed in M.J.C. No.39 of 2005. Even after restoration of the writ petition, the petitioner has not been careful and again the matter has been dismissed. When the matter is taken up today, none is present for the petitioner and even the defects pointed out by the office sicne 24.2.2004 could not be rectified after four years having passed.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, I see no reason to restore the writ petition to its original file. The application, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) K.C.Jha/- U