Punam Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21579 of 2018 ====================================================== Punam Kumari Wife of Rahul Kumar, Resident of Village- Sukhlahiya, Post and Police Station - Darpa, District- East Champaran, presently holding the post of Secretary cum Treasurer, Chhauradano Prakhand Matasyajeevi Sahyog Samiti Limited, Village- Sukhlahiya (Darpa), District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Director, Fisheries, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Deputy Director, Fisheries, Koshi Region, Saharsa. 4.

The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Bihar. 5.

The District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District- East Champaran.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Roy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 03-11-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner though State is present.

2. The present application has been preferred for the following relief(s):

(i) Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the enquiry report as contained in letter no. 145, dated 15.10.2018 whereby and where under the respondent no.3 has submitted its report to the respondent no.2 for taking appropriate action against the society of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.21579 of 2018(3) dt.03-11-2025 2/2 petitioner.

(ii) Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent not to disturb the business of the society on the basis of report so submitted by the respondent no.3, which is far from the truth and against the statutes notified in officials gazette for the fishermen co operative societies.

(iii) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case.

3. For want of prosecution, dismissed.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U