IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1072 of 2009 Ashok Kumar, son of Late Chautan Ram, resident of MIG-284, Lohia Nagar, Kankerbagh, police station- Kankerbagh, District-Patna …….Petitioner. Versus 1. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna. 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ….Opposite Parties. ------ 2. 23.04.2009 Mr. Uday Chand Prasad for the petitioner, and Mr. Bajrangi Lal, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.8 are present. This application has been filed for recall/modification of the order dated 7.11.2008, passed in CWJC NO.15356 of 2007, whereby the writ petition stood dismissed because of the refusal on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner to proceed with the arguments. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the writ application was placed before a Division Bench on 18.3.2008, 27.6.2008, 24.7.2008, 19.8.2008, 11.9.2008 and 26.9.2008, and on all the dates, as prayed for by Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned. It was finally taken up on 7.11.2008, on which date learned counsel for the petitioner again made a prayer for adjournment. The prayer was declined and was rejected by the following order: - 2 - “Mr.Üday Chand Prasad, counsel for the petitioners prays for adjournment. We find from the proceedings that earlier on five times the prayer for adjournment has been made on behalf of the petitioners. As a matter of fact, right from 27th June, 2008, whenever the matter was posted, a request for adjournment has been made on behalf of the petitioners. We find no justification to adjourn the matter any further. The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.” It appears to be a case of extra-ordinary negligence, and gross abuse of process of the Court. It is not possible to countenance the conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application is accordingly rejected. hr ( S. K. Katriar ) ( Kishore K. Mandal )