Dismissed

Parikshan Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC7 Dec 2015CWJC/13385/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition as abated. The sole petitioner had died in 2009, and despite an order granting time, steps were not taken to substitute his heirs. Respondents argued abatement; no petitioner appearance contested this. The court found no rejoinder and dismissed the case.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it had abated due to the death of the sole petitioner without substitution of heirs.

Parikshan Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13385 of 2007

¶2

====================================================== Parikshan Ram, son of late Doma Ram, resident of village-Bakharian, P.O.+ P.S.-Bhore (Dube Jigna), District-Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chairman, Bhudan Yagya Committee, Kadamkuan, Patna-4. 2. The Bhudan Office, Zila Mantri, Arer More, Gopalganj, DistrictGopalganj. 3. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 4. The Circle Officer, Bhore Block, District-Gopalganj. 5. Shalendra Sahay 6. Ajay Sahay Both sons of Rama Nand Sahay, resident of village-Bakhari, P.O. and P.S.-Bhore (Dube Jigna), P.S.-Bhore, District-Gopalganj. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None. For the Respondent nos.5&6 : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Adv. Mr.Raj Kamal, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶3

8 07-12-2015 From perusal of the office note dated 02.12.2015, it appears that, despite indulgence granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner by an order dated 19.05.2015, steps have not been taken for substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the sole writ petitioner.

¶4

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.5 and 6, by referring to the averments made in para 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the aforesaid respondents, submits that the sole writ petitioner died on 06.07.2009 leaving behind his heirs and legal representatives. According to him, since the steps have not been taken for substitution within a reasonable period of time; therefore, the writ petition has abated and the whole writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.13385 of 2007 (8) dt.07-12-2015

¶6

¶7

None appears on behalf of the petitioner to contest the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.5 and 6.

¶8

From perusal of the record, it appears that no rejoinder affidavit has been filed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.5 and 6 despite service of copy upon the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

In above view of the matter particularly in view of the death of the sole writ petitioner in the year 2009, the writ petition has stood abated and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶10

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

¶11

Arvind/-

¶12

Parikshan Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parikshan Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bindeshwari Prasad Chaudhary and Anr. Vs Shyam Nandan Chaudhary and Ors.

Sri Bimlendu Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Naresh Mandal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Munni Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ganauri Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anugrah Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.