The High Court dismissed a substantive part of the writ application where the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue alternative remedies.
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.2197 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2016 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Rohtas
======================================================
Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Chaurasiya S/o Kalika Chaurasiya, R/o VillageChilahari, P.S.- Dumrav, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : AC to SC 15 ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as a result of subsequent developments which have taken place during pendency of the instant application, he seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to pursue the alternate remedy available to him in accordance with law.
This application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Spd/-
U T
Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Chaurasiya
The State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary Forest Department Government of Bihar
The Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Bihar
The District Magistrate Rohtas
Partha Sarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
