IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10584 of 2008 ---- 1. Sudhir Singh, Ex-Line Man (Elect.) Under Senior S.E., Power House, N.F. Railway, Katihar 2. Suman Kumar Singh, son of Sri Sudhir Singh, both resident of Mohalla – Laliyahi, Behind Hanuman Temple, Post – Mill, P.S.- Katihar, District – Katihar (Bihar) …………… Petitioners Versus 1. The Union Of India, through the General Manager, N.F. Railway Maligaon, (Gauhati), 2. The chief Personnel Officer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon (Guahati), 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, N.F. Railway, Katihar 4. The Divisional Railway Manager, N.F. Railway, Katihar, 5. The Senior D.E.E., N.F. Railway, Katihar 6. The Chief Medical Director, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, 7. The C.M.S., Katihar …………. Respondents ---------- For the Petitioners : None. For the Respondents : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate --------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 29th September, 2008. None appears for the petitioners. 2. On 26th September, 2008, we passed the following order: “Mr. Akhileshwar Pandey, advocate, appears and prays for adjournment. Prayer for adjournment is highly - 2 - unreasonable. On 05th August, 2008, none appeared for the petitioners, but still we adjourned the matter to enable the petitioners or their advocate to appear on the next date. 2.Then on 21st August, 2008, the counsel for the petitioners prayed and we granted adjournment for one week. 3. Then again on 1st September, 2008, the counsel for the petitioners prayed for adjournment. We acceded to his request and adjourned the matter. 4. Yet again on 11th September, 2008, prayer for adjournment was made by the counsel for the petitioners and we adjourned the matter. Despite that on earlier occasions, adjournment was sought and we granted, yet again a prayer for adjournment is made. 5. In the interest of justice, we keep the matter for 29th September, 2008 making it clear that no further request for adjournment or pass over on any ground shall be entertained. If the advocate for the petitioner is indisposed, he must make some alternative arrangement and we indicate very clearly that on that ground also, no request for adjournment shall be entertained. 6. Stand over to 29th September, 2008.” 3. Under the circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss the writ petition in default and we order accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/