The court held that a writ application could not proceed absent compliance regarding specific respondents. Consequently, the application was treated as dismissed due to non-filing of a restoration application.
Treated as dismissed due to non-filing of restoration application and absence of respondents.
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
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1074 of 2009
======================================================
Umesh Prasad Yadav .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K.Manglam Mr. Anamika Dubey For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Aag3) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
4. 11-05-2018
It appears that this court’s order dated 08.09.2010 has not been complied with within the prescribed period. The writ application stood rejected against respondent nos. 10 and 11 on 18.09.2010. On 03.05.2011 two weeks time was granted by this court to enable the petitioner to file restoration application but as per office report dated 09.05.2018 restoration application has not been filed as yet.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, nothing survives for adjudication as the writ application cannot proceed in absence of respondent no. 10 and 11. The writ application has to be treated as dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
Rajeev/-
U T
Umesh Prasad Yadav
State of Bihar & Ors
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
