Patna High Court
Dinanath YadavversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISS FOR NON-PROSECUTION
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The petition was dismissed for non‑prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear on three consecutive dates.
Summary
Dinanath Yadav filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the State of Bihar to regularise his service as a night guard and to adjust his posting in accordance with his qualifications. The petitioner failed to appear before the Patna High Court on three successive dates (14‑11‑2024, 05‑08‑2025, and 05‑01‑2026). Despite adjournments and repeated notices, no counsel or representative appeared on his behalf. The respondent’s counsel, Mr. Uday Bhan Singh, was present throughout. As a result, the Court dismissed the petition for non‑prosecution, without addressing the merits of the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus for regularisation and adjustment of his service
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- service regularisation
- non‑prosecution
- civil writ jurisdiction
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.650 of 2017
======================================================
Dinanath Yadav son of Rambaran Yadav, Resident of Village- Raghunathpur,
P.S.- Brahampur, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Registrar, Co-operative Society, New Secretariat,
Patna.
2. Joint Secretary, Co-operative Society, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. District Co-operative Officer, Buxar, District- Buxar.
4. Assistant Registrar, C-operative Society, Dumraon, District- Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None
For the State : Mr. Uday Bhan Singh, AC to GP-19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
5 05-01-2026 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the respondents is present.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs :-
“(i) For issuance of writ of
mandamus commanding the respondent
authority to take decision to regularise the
service of petitioner who is working on the post
of Night Guard, Bayapar Mandal,
Raghunathpur, Distt. Buxar from his joining July
1984.
(ii) For issuance of writ of Mandamus
Patna High Court CWJC No.650 of 2017(5) dt.05-01-2026
2/3
commanding the respondent authority to adjust
the service of petitioner transfering him from the
department of Co-operative to ther department
on the post for which petitioner is entitled for as
per his qualification.
(iii) For issuance of such other
appropriate writ or direction which may deem fit
and proper for the ends of justice.”
3. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the
last two dates i.e. 14.11.2024 and 5.8.2025 also when the
following orders were recorded :-
“14-11-2024
None appears on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Re-notify this case on 06.02.2025.
… … … … … … … … … … … … .. ..
05-08-2025
Upon repeated calls, no one
appears on behalf of the petitioner.
However, Learned Counsel for the State
is present.
2. It transpires from Order
No.3 dated 14.11.2024 also, no one
appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
3. As a matter of last
indulgence, this case is adjourned for
two weeks.
4. List this case on
02.09.2025. If on the said date, no one
appears on behalf of the petitioner,
appropriate order shall be passed.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.650 of 2017(5) dt.05-01-2026
3/3
4. As no one appears on behalf of the petitioner for the
third consecutive date, the case is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U
Checking your session…