The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition for non-prosecution when no representation appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the hearing dates. The State counsel was present but no relief was claimed by the petitioner.
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.116 of 2020
======================================================
Fhul Mahmed Ray @ Full Mohammad s/o Utim Ray, r/o village Dhamram, Makriyar, Pakri Makariyar or Badli, District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma (Aag3)
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER
7 05-09-2022
When the matter was taken up earlier on 29.08.2022,
there was none to represent the petitioner. Today again when the matter is taken up, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State is present.
Matter is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
SUMIT/-
U
Fhul Mahmed Ray @ Full Mohammad
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Home Department
The Director General of Police
The Inspector General of Police, Home Guard
The District Magistrate, Siwan
The Superintendent of Police, Siwan
Madhuresh Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
