Sanjeeva Kumar v. The State Of Bihar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.187 of 2025 ====================================================== Sanjeeva Kumar, Son of Satyendra Pandey, Presently posted as In- charge Principal, Marwari College, Kishanganj and permanent resident of Road No.10-B, Rajendra Nagar, Sampatchak, Police Station- Kadamkuan, DistrictPatna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate, Kishanganj.

3.

The Circle Officer, Kishanganj.

4.

The Deputy Director, Chakbandi, Kishanganj.

5.

Arshad Alam Son of Dilawar Hussain Resident of Village -College Road, Kishan Public School, District- Kishanganj.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sarvdeo Singh- Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar- Advocate For the State :

Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad- GP-14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned GP-14 for the State.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, at the outset, submits that the case was taken up on 20.01.2025, whereby three weeks' time was granted to the petitioner to remove all the defects as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter at Flag-A, failing which the application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.

3. Thereafter, it was recorded:- put up this matter on 17.02.2025 for formal order.

Patna High Court CWJC No.187 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2025 2/2

4. It is next submitted that the order dated 20.01.2025 was a peremptory order and the defects was not removed within the time stipulated in the order dated 20.01.2025, as such, the case was dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 20.01.2025 on 10.02.2025 as would manifest from the office report dated 15.02.2025. It is next submitted that the case has been put up today as it was recorded in the order dated 20.01.2025 to put up the case on 17.02.2025 for formal order.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

6. Since the peremptory order dated 20.01.2025 was not complied, as such, the office has rightly recorded in the office report dated 15.02.2025 that due to non-compliance of the order dated 20.01.2025, the instant writ petition stood rejected on 10.02.2025.

7. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U