Shambhu Prasad @ Shambhu Kumar Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9457 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.

Shambhu Prasad @ Shambhu Kumar Singh, Son of Chandrika Prasad Singh 2.

Sunaina Kumari @ Sunaina Devi, Daughter of Late Anandi Paswan, Wife of Nakul Paswan.

3.

Bharat Lal Paswan, Son of Late Mango Paswan 4.

Shushil Kumar Singh, Son of Late Yogendra Prasad Singh. 5.

Shashidhar Jha, Son of Late Bal Mukund Jha, All are resident of villageNaghar, Police Station - Navgachhiya, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

3.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reform, Bihar, Patna.

4.

The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

5.

The District Education Office, Bhagalpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy No-1 (SC-13) Mr. U.K. Singh (AC to SC-13) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 27-02-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Learned Counsel for the State.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the present matter is relating to non-formal education.

3. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous on account of judgment dated 05.07.2023 rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Civil Review No. 59 of 2018 (The State

Patna High Court CWJC No.9457 of 2018(4) dt.27-02-2025 2/2 of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Harendra Mishra & Ors.) and the same may be disposed off accordingly. The operative portion of the said judgment is extracted as under:- "As has been discussed above, as the writ petitioners had admittedly not approached this Court or the Supreme Court on or before 26.02.2016, no relief could have been granted to them. The writ petition filed by them, i.e., CWJC No. 384 of 2017, deserved to be dismissed. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 03.03.2017 passed in CWJC No. 384 of 2017."

4. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U