High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Smt.Mini Verma vs The State Of Bihar &Amp;Ors on 11 February, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Smt.Mini Verma vs The State Of Bihar &Amp;Ors on 11 February, 2011
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                    CWJC No.7934 of 2007
                    SMT.MINI VERMA wife of Sri Akhilesh Kumar, resident of
                    village + P.O. Babhangama, P.S. Behariganj, District
                    Madhepura             ...             ...     Petitioner
                                              Versus
                    1. THE STATE OF BIHAR,
                    2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
                        Department, Government of Bihar, Patna,
                    3. The District Magistrate, Madhepura,
                    4. The District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura,
                    5. The Block Development Officer, Behariganj, District
                        Madhepura,
                    6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Behariganj Block,
                        District Madhepura,
                    7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Babhangama, Behariganj
                        Block, District Madhepura,
                    8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Babhangama,
                        Behariganj Block, District Madhepura,
                    9. Smt. Anita Kumari D/o Sri Baidyanath Prasad Yadav,
                        Village + P.O. Fatehpur, P.S. Behariganj, District
                        Madhepura,
                                                        ...     Respondents
                    For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Kumar Varma, Advocate,
                    For the State: Mr. M.D. Dwivedi, SC 23,
                                          Mr. S.K. Singh, AC to SC 23,
                    For Respondent No. 9: Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Adv.
                                            -----------

4 11.02.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks

permission to withdraw this writ application.

Learned counsel for the State as well as

respondent no. 9 raises no objection.

Permission is accorded.

This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed as

withdrawn.

SC                                               (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)