Writ petition seeking mandamus dismissed as defective because relief was sought against respondent No. 7 though only six respondents were impleaded; liberty granted to sue the proper party.
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.14817 of 2018
======================================================
Samsun Nisha W/o Md. Mahfoz Alam Resident of Village Kumma, P.S. Sursand, District Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md.Nadim Seraj -GP-5 ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER
3 21-04-2025
No one appears on behalf of the petitioner, even after repeated calls. However, learned counsel for the State is present.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14817 of 2018(3) dt.21-04-2025 2/2
present writ petition, and no one has been added as respondent No. 7. But, relief has been sought against respondent No. 7, and references to respondent No. 7 have been made in paragraph Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, and 12 of the prayer portion.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking mandamus against respondent No. 7, who was never impleaded, is maintainable?
Samsun Nisha
The State of Bihar
The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi
The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi
The Sub Divisional Officer, Pupri, District Sitamarhi
The Dy. S.P., Pupri, District Sitamarhi
Dr. Anshuman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
