IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6904 of 2011 Ayodhya Sah, son of late Ram Chandra Sah, resident of Village- Piroi Samsuddin, P.S. Goraul, District- Vaishali ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chairman, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, 3rd Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hydrabad, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., 403 A & 404 A, Fourth Floor, Kaushalya Estate, Dak Bunglow Crossing, Patna-1. 5. The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Uma Complex 2nd Floor, Frazer Road, Patna-1. 6. The Manager Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., 304, 3rd Floor, Rajendra Ram Plaza, Exhibition Road, Patna-1. 7. The Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kadamkuan (Near Uma Cinema Hall), Patna-1. 8. The Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Sone Bhavan, Beer Chand Patel Path, Patna-1. 9. The Regional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd., 3rd Floor, Chanakya Tower, Near Chanakya Hotel, R. Block, Patna-1 ----- Respondents. -------- 3. 10.5.2011 Heard Mr. Prashant Sinha for the petitioner, and Mr. S.K. Sharma for the Union of India, Mr. Avinash Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.11 for respondent no.2, Mr. Sanjay Singh for respondent no.7, and Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi for respondent nos.8 and 9. The petitioner claims to be the holder of smart card with 2 respect to Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Yojna’). He has preferred the present writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation to examine the implementation of the Yojna in Bihar. In his submission, it is being poorly implemented as a result of which persons below poverty line in Bihar are deprived of the benefits of the scheme. He, therefore, prays that the affairs of respondent nos. 4 to 9 in relation to implementation of the Yojna in Bihar may be subjected to detail examination. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition to approach respondent no.3. In case such petition is filed, respondent no.3 shall ensure its disposal in accordance with law expeditiously. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)