← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/19360/2015dfd for non appearance

Juhi Begum And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2025-11-04Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19360 of 2015 ====================================================== 1.

Juhi Begum Wife of late Yunus 2.

Md. Adam Son of late Md. Yunus.

3.

Md. Azam Son of late Md. Yunus.

All Residents of Village- Semra Belwatia, P.s Turkaulia, District East Champaran.

4.

Tabassum Jahan Wife of Md. Nasim, D/o Late Md. Yunus Resident of Shah Mian Rahua, P.s Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali. 5.

Arzoo Jahan Son of Akbar Abbas, D/o Late Md. Yunus Resident of Sarai Ward no. 1, N.H. 28, Gopalganj.

6.

Shamima Khatoon wife of Syed Badruddoza, D/o late Md. Yunus Resident of Village- Paithania tola, Takeya, P.s Chakia District East Champaran. 7.

Zeba Parveen Wife of Amjad Alam Resident of village- Semra Bllwatia, Po - Piprakothi, P.s Turkaulia, District East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Director, Secondary Education , Govt. of Bihar, Budh Marg, Patna. 3.

The Regional Deputy Director of Education ,Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 4.

The District Education Officer, West Champaran Bettiah.. 5.

The Headmaster , High School Sathi, P.s Sathi, District West Champaran. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 04-11-2025 No one appears for the petitioners as well as on behalf of the respondents-State.

2. By order dated 29.07.2024, last opportunity was given to the petitioners for filing rejoinder to the counter affidavit within two weeks. No rejoinder has been filed till date

Patna High Court CWJC No.19360 of 2015(8) dt.04-11-2025 2/2 and neither the counsel for the petitioners is present to press the writ application.

3. Since the matter relates to the year 2015, therefore, it will not be appropriate to protract this matter unnecessarily as the petitioners seem to have lost interest in pursuing the writ application. The case is, therefore, dismissed for nonprosecution. (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) Prakash Narayan U