IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7714 of 2009 1. VIMAL DEVI, WIFE OF SRI RAM JANAM SAW, R/V CHAURAM, GRAM PANCHAYAT SARAUTI, DISTRICT ARWAL. 2. UJELA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI SANJAY SINGH, R/V DHORHA, POST AND P.S. RAMPUR CHAURAM, GRAM PANCHAYAT SARAUTI,DISTRICT ARWAL. 3. RESHAM KUMARI, WIFE OF RAJ KAMAL VISHWAKARMA, R/V SARAUTI, P.S. RAMPUR CHAURAM, GRAM PANCHAYAT SARAUTI, DISTRICT ARWAL. 4. SAVITA KUMARI, WIFE OF PARMESH KUMAR, R/V RAMPUR CHAURAM, GRAM PANCHAYAT SARAUTI, P.S. RAMPUR CHAURAM, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 5. MANORAMA KUMARI, WIFE OF UMESH KUMAR, R/V RAMPUR CHAURAM BAKAIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT SARAUTI, P.S. RAMPUR CHAURAM, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 6. SMT. SUMAN KUMARI,WIFE OF BIMAL KUMAR, R/V AND POST RAMPUR CHAURAM, P.S. RAMPUR CHAURAM, GRAM PANCHAYAT SARAUTI, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 7. SUJANTI DEVI, WIFE OF DHANANJAY KUMAR, R/V RANAPUR, GRAM PANCHAYAT SARAUTI, POST RAMPUR CHAURAM, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 8. MANJU KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI NARSINGH KUMARI, R/V GAURA, POST AND P.S. RAMPUR CHAURAM, GRAM PANCHAYAT AWGILA, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 9. LEELAWATI KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI MADAN KUMAR, R/V GOPAL BIGAHA, GRAM PANCHAYAT KHAMAINI, P.S. RAMPUR CHAURAM, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL -------PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, SOCIAL WELFARE, DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARWAL. 4. SRI VIMLA NAND JHA, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,ARWAL. 5. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, BLOCK-ARWAL, DISTRICT ARWAL. 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK-ARWAL, DISTRICT ARWAL. 7. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT SARAUTI, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 8. PANCHAYAT SECTETARY,GRAM PANCHAYAT SARAUTI, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 9. MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT KHAMAINI, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 10. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT KHAMAINI, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 11. MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT AWAGILA, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 12. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT AWAGILA, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL------- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02. 09.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the name of petitioner no.6 be deleted from the array of the parties. As prayed for, name of petitioner no.6 be struck off from the writ application. It is agreed at the Bar by the counsel for the petitioners as also the counsel for the State that the writ application should be disposed of exactly in the same terms, which is contained in order no.2 dated 29.6.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7094 of 2009, which is, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J)