Sanjeev Kumar vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 28 April, 2011

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CWJC No.7584 of 2006
                                 SANJEEV KUMAR, SON OF SITA RAM SINGH,
CHAIRMAN M/S VISHNUPUR LARKANIYA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHYOG SAMITI LTD.
VILLAGE AND P.O. VISHNUPUR LARKANIYA, P.S. RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT-
SITAMARHI :---PETITIONER.
                                     Versus
                              1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
                              2. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
                                 BIHAR, PATNA.
                              3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE
                                 SOCIETIES, BIHAR, PATNA.
                              4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) CO-
                                 OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BIHAR, PATNA.
                              5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-
                                 ADMINISTRATOR, M/S TIRHUT DUGDH UTPADAK
                                 SAHKARI SANGH LTD. MUZAFFARPUR.
                              6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S TIRHUT DUGH
                                 UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD.,
                                 MUZAFFARPUR.
                              7. M/S TIRHUT DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH
                                 LTD., MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS
                                 ADMINISTRATOR, MUZAFFARPUR.
                              8. VIRENDRA KUMAR ROY, SON OF LATE
                                 BINDESHWARI ROY, CHAIRMAN, OF M/S MURAL
                                 DUGDH UTPADAK SAHYOG SAMITI LTD.
                                 VILLAGE AND P.O. MURAL, DISTT-
                                 MUZAFFARPUR (EX-CHAIRMAN) OF THE EX-
                                 MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE DISSOLVED M/S
                                 TIRHUT DUGDH UTAPADAK SAHKARI SANGH
                                 LTD., MUZAFFARPUR :--RESPONDENTS.
                                  -----------

3. 28.04.2011. None appears for the petitioner. Same

was the position on 20.04.2011.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is

dismissed for default. Counsel for the State and

other respondents are present.

(V.N.Sinha,J.)
P.K.P.