High Court Patna High Court - Orders

The Chief Executive Officer,Ca vs Lalit Prasad &Amp; Ors on 13 July, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
The Chief Executive Officer,Ca vs Lalit Prasad &Amp; Ors on 13 July, 2010
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
               LPA No.1023 of 2010
                       IN
               CWJC No. 7806 of 2010

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, Cantonment Board Office,
Danapur Cantonment, Danapur, P.S.- Danapur Cantt., Distt.- Patna
... (Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition) Appellant.
                             Versus
1. LALIT PRASAD, S/O LATE BRIJ NANDAN LAL, R/O
MANPURA, NEAR KISHWAHA PANCHAYAT BHAWAN, P.S.-
DANAPUR CANTT., DISTT.- PATNA (Petitioner in the writ
petition) ............................................ Respondent 1st Set,
2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL DEFENCE ESTATE, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
RAKAHS SAMPADA BHAWAN, PALAM ROAD, NEW DELHI-
110310 (Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition)
3. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR, CENTRAL COMMAND,
DEFENCE ESTATE, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, KARIAPPA
ROAD, LUCKNOW (U.P.) (Respondent No. 2 in the writ petition)
......... Respondents IInd Set
4. COMMANDENT JOB, SUB AREA, DANAPUR CANTT., P.S.
DANAPUR, DISTT.- PATNA (Respondent No. 3 in the writ
petition) ............................................ Respondent IIIrd Set.
================================================
Appearance:

MR. DHIRANJAN KUMAR SINHA, Advocate for the appellant.
================================================
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                       AND
           HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.K. KATRIAR
                   -------------
           Date :  13.07.2010
                   -------------
ORAL ORDER

(PER : HON’BLE MS JUSTICE R.M. DOSHIT, CJ)
-2-

This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters

Patent is preferred by the Chief Executive Officer,

Cantonment Board Office, Danapur Cantonment,

Danapur against the order dated 04.05.2010 made by the

learned single Judge in the above CWJC No. 7806 of

2010.

The grievance of the learned Advocate Mr

Dhiranjan Kumar Sinha appearing for the appellant is

that the order has been made without affording an

opportunity of hearing to the respondents. Learned

Advocate for the appellant states that though the order

has been made ex parte, as no mandamus has been

issued against the appellant, the appellant seeks leave to

withdraw this Appeal.

Leave is granted.

The Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

( R.M. Doshit, CJ )

( S.K. Katriar, J )
Dilip