Oral order dismissing a civil writ petition under Article 226 for want of prosecution, as the petitioner failed to appear despite the counsel listed in the daily cause list.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19828 of 2013
| ====================================================== Pramod Chand Bothra son of Late Abhoy Chand Bothra, resident of village Chhatapur, police station + Anchal Chhatapur, District Supaul .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Supaul 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Tribeniganj, District Supaul 4. Md.Allauddin son of Late Sk.Tasowar, resident of village Chhatapur, Police Station Chhatapur, District Supaul .... .... Respondent/s |
|
|---|---|
| ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, AC to GP 21 For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== |
|
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER |
|
| 4 | 14-12-2015 Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, though the name of the learned counsel appearing on his behalf is printed in the daily cause list. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. |
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Tahir/U
Pramod Chand Bothra
The State of Bihar
The Collector, Supaul
The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Tribeniganj
Md.Allauddin
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
