Dismissed¶24

Sunaina Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Nov 2024CWJC/7131/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; CWJC No.7131 of 2020; Sunaina Devi W/o Damodar Singh v. State of Bihar and others; oral order dated 11-11-2024; Satyavrat Verma, J.; writ application dismissed as withdrawn; infructuous; relief sought for granted during pendency; permission to withdraw accorded; respondents include Road Construction Department, Rural Works Department, District Magistrate Patna, Circle Officer Dhanarua, District Land Acquisition Officer Patna; no statutes or precedents cited; advocates Ravi Kumar (petitioner) and Manoj Ambhastha SC-26 (respondents).

What did the court decide?

Permission accorded to withdraw the writ application; the application was dismissed as withdrawn, having become infructuous. ¶24

Sunaina Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7131 of 2020

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Sunaina Devi W/o Damodar Singh R/o Village- Jaitiya, Block Fathua, P.S.Gaurichak, Patna, Bihar- 804451.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar Through its Chief Secretary.

¶7

The Principal Secretary Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vishwesharaiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna- 800015.

¶8

The Executive Engineer Road Construction Department, Patna Road Division, Gulzarbag, Patna, Bihar- 800007.

¶9

The District Magistrate Patna.

¶10

The Circle Officer Dhanarua.

¶11

District Land Acquisition Officer Patna.

¶12

The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

======================================================

¶15

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Ambhastha, SC-26 ======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶17

6 11-11-2024

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC-26 Mr. Manoj Ambastha.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State at the outset submits that the writ application has become infructious, as the petitioner has been granted the relief sought for during the pendency of the instant writ application. The said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State is not countenanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner has been granted the

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.7131 of 2020(6) dt.11-11-2024 2/2

¶22

relief sought for in the instant writ application and thus seeks permission to withdraw the writ application.

¶23

Permission is accorded.

¶24

The writ application is dismissed as withdrawn as

¶25

has become infructuous.

¶26

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶27

amit/-

¶28

U T

Sunaina Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunaina Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arbind Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Satya Narayan Agrawal, Vs The State of Bihar

Mukul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Shammi Vs The State of Bihar

Kumar Vaibhav Vikash Vs The State of Bihar