Homoeopathic Medical Associati vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 11 March, 2011

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                       CWJC No.3625 of 2004
                   1.HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION of India,
                     Bhojpur Unit through its Secretary, Dr. Brij Bihari Prfasad, Moula
                     Bagh, Ara, Bhojpur.
                   2.Institute of Momeo Care and Research, Mangal Pandey Path Ara,
                     District- Bhojpur through its Director, Dr. Hare Ram Pandey.
                   3.Indian Homoeopathic Organisation through its Secretary Dr. Uday
                     Narayan Sinha.
                   4. Ram Narayan Medical College and Hospital, Navada, Ara District-
                      Bhojpur, through its Secretary Dr. Hare Ram Pandey of Managing
                      Committee                                        ......Petitioners.
                                           Versus
                   1.THE STATE OF BIHAR
                   2.Commissioner, Department of Health and Family Welfare Govt. of
                     Bihar.
                   3.Commissioner, Health Education, Family Welfare and Deshi
                     Chikitsa.
                   4.Collector, Bhojpur at Ara.
                   5.Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Am,bedkar, Bihar University Muzaffarpur
                     through its Vice Chancellor.
                    6Vice Chancellor, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University,
                      Muzaffarpur.
                    7.Central Council of Homoeopathy, Jawaharlal Nehru Bhartiya
                      Chikitsa and Homoeopathy, Anushandhan Bhawan No. 61.65 5th
                      and 6th Floors Institutional Area Opposite 'D' Block Janakpuri-
                      110058.
                   8.Vijay Kumar Shah, son of late Ram Narayan Shah, white House,
                      Dhobighat, Lawlakhel, Kathmandu, Nepal.......Respondents.
                                                -----------

2 11.03.2011 Despite repeated calls, nobody is present on behalf

of the petitioners to press this application. However, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of some of the respondents is

present. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed for want of

prosecution.

( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)

Rahman/