Patna High Court - Orders
Md. Akbar Azam vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 22 February, 2017
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.656 of 2015
======================================================
Md. Akbar Azam, Son of Late Abdul Razzaque R/o Village Bazidpur P.S.
& Dist Sheikhpura, presently residing at Mohalla Emadpur, Mian Suna
Dargah, P.S. Bihar, Dist Nalanda
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Bihar Patna
2. The Director General of Police, Govt of Bihar, Patna
3. The Inspector General Darbhanga Region, Darbhanga
4. The Deputy Inspector General, Purnea Division, Purnea
5. The Superintendent of Police, Araria
6. The Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Irshad
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to GP-24
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 22-02-2017Heard Mr. Md. Irshad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GP-24.
The present writ petition was filed with a prayer to direct the Respondents to grant the benefit of 1st and 2nd A.C.P. to the petitioner, who has retired from service on 30.11.2013 from the police department.
In this case, earlier a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent no.6 i.e.the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura and in the earlier counter affidavit, a stand was taken that the Superintendent of Police had already recommended the case of the petitioner along with others for grant of ACP/MACP to Patna High Court CWJC No.656 of 2015 (3) dt.22-02-2017 2/2 the office of D.I.G., Munger vide its letter no.1065 dated 04.07.2014. In view of statement made in the counter affidavit, learned State Counsel, by order dated 24.01.2017, was asked to get instruction as to whether the benefit under the ACP Scheme has been granted or not pursuant to recommendation of the Superintendent of Police and file affidavit.In compliance with earlier order, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.6 and in paragraphs-4 and 5, it has categorically been mentioned that the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed.
In view of statements made in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the supplementary counter affidavit, the Court is of the opinion that there is no need to further keep the matter pending. The writ petition stands disposed of;
(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/-
U