On oral order, High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press the petition or seek adjournment.
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. 11143 of 2011 ====================================================== |
|
|---|---|
Dr. Binod Kumar Safi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : AC to Addl. Advocate General - 11 |
|
| ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER |
|
| 3. | 14-01-2016 On call, none appeared on behalf of petitioner either |
| to press the petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. Learned | |
| A.C. to Addl. Advocate General–11, in view of facts disclosed in | |
| the counter affidavit, submits that writ petition requires no | |
| interference. Be that as it may, since none appeared on behalf of |
|
| petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed due to non- | |
| prosecution. | |
| (Rakesh Kumar, J.) | |
| Anay U |
Dr. Binod Kumar Safi
The State of Bihar
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
