Patna High Court - Orders
Uday Pratap Thakur & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 November, 2017
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8283 of 2016
======================================================
1. Uday Pratap Thakur, S/o Late Umesh Thakur, Resident of village-
Sahwajpur, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur.
2. Harkeshwar Singh, S/o Srikant Singh, Resident of Village- Naudiha,
P.S.- Sonepur, District- Chhapra.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Building Construction
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Engineer (Work) Building Construction Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department,
Building Circle, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Accountant General (A & E) Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. K. Karn, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Santosh Chandra Bhasker, A.C. to G.P.
11
For the A.G. : Mr. Satyendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
3 17-11-2017Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in the subject matter of the writ petition as the challenge is to the vires of the Government policy. Let necessary correction be made during the course of the day.
2. The matter be listed before the appropriate Bench thereafter. Additional copy of the brief be also furnished. Learned counsel for the State and Accountant General are present. They shall also file an extra copy of the brief.
3. In view of the fact that copy of counter affidavit Patna High Court CWJC No.8283 of 2016 (3) dt.17-11-2017 2/2 filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3, have not been served on learned counsel for the Accountant General, despite the fact that the pleadings have to be exchanged between the parties and further notice to this effect has been printed in the cause list daily, the Court deemed it appropriate to impose cost. However, in view of apology tendered by learned counsel for the State, the Court refrains from doing so, for the present.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U