Sunil Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3552 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11898 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.
Sunil Kumar Singh Son of Late Lal Bahadur Singh Resident Of Quarter No. R-20/6, Near Veer Kunwar Singh Park Doranda Harmu Housing Colony, Police Station Argora District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2.
Sudhir Kumar Son of Late of Bahadur Singh Resident of Flat NO. 1/A, Bhagwati Enclave, Budha Vihar, Near Sant Nerankari Bhawan, Doranda, Police Station Argora, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through Sri Dr. S. Siddharth, Urban Development and Housing Department, Vikas Bhawan, Police Station Sachivalaya, DistrictPatna. 2.
The Bihar State Housing Board through Sri Shyam Kumar Singh, the Secretary, 6 Mangles Road, Police Station Sachivalaya, District-Patna. 3.
Sri Anupam Kumar Suman, the Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Mangles Road, Police Station Sachivalaya, District-Patna 4.
Jharkhand State Housing Board through Sri Binay Manish R. Lakra, the Secretary, Harmu, Ranchi, Police Station Argora, District-Ranchi, Pin Code834002. 5.
Sri Amit Kumar, the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Police Station Argora, District-Ranchi, Pin Code-834002. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-7 For the Housing Board :
Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board.
2. Learned counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board submits that the order has been complied with and show cause is already on record.
Patna High Court MJC No.3552 of 2024(3) dt.05-05-2025 2/2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute such fact and accepts that the order has already been complied with.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the application stands dismissed as having become infructuous.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) ajay/- U