High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Arvind Singh Yadav vs The Union Of India Through The on 9 November, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Arvind Singh Yadav vs The Union Of India Through The on 9 November, 2011
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4435 of 2011
                  1.   Arvind Singh Yadav son sri Radhe Shyam Singh Yadav, resident
                       of village Matiyari, P.O. Dewhalia, P.S. Ramgarh, Dist. Kaimur to
                       Bhabua, Bihar.
                                                                                 ---Petitioner.
                                                    Versus
                  1.   The Union Of India through the Director General (HQT) National
                       Stadium Complex New Delhi.
                  2.   The Director General (HQT) National Stadium Complex New
                       Delhi.
                  3.   The Deputy Director General (HQT) Coast Guard Region (W)
                       Worli, Mumbai 400030.
                  4.   The Commanding Indian Coast Guard Dist. HQT no.4, Coast
                       Guard, Dist. Kalvathy Road Fort, Kochi 682001.
                  5.   The office in charge, Bureau of Naviks, Cheetah Camp. Mankhurd,
                       Mumbai-400088.
                                                                          --Respondents.
                                       ----------------------------------

03 09.11.2011 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.

Present application has been filed seeking recall of order

dated 21.09.2011 passed in CWJC No. 15439 of 2011. The order

dated 21.09.2011 reads as under:-

Nobody appears on behalf of the
petitioner. Same is case with the respondent.

On 13.09.2011, the following order
was passed:-

“No one appears on behalf of the
petitioner.

Learned counsel for the Respondent-
Union of India is present.

Learned counsel for the Respondent-
Union of India on going through the pleadings
made in the writ application submits that the same
before this Court is not maintainable since all the
orders impugned in the application have been
passed by the authorities outside the State of Bihar.

Instead of dismissing this application in
default the case is adjourned to be listed after one
week.”

The application is dismissed for non-
prosecution.”

On going through the aforesaid order and the pleadings

made in the application, I am not satisfied that a case for restoration
2

has been made out.

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sym                                       ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)