IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7164 of 1996 Sri Chandi Kumar Jha Versus State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 9. 25.10.2011 I.A.No. 6725/2011 Mr. Madhav Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the description of respondents no. 2 and 3 in the original writ application was wrongly made, inasmuch as respondent no.2 ought to have been described as the Commissioner of Excise and Prohibition but he has been inadvertently described as Commissioner of Custom and Excise. Similarly he submits that after retirement the petitioner is permanently residing in home village which falls in the district of Madhepura but the petitioner had made Treasury Officer, Saharsa as a party to this writ application, whereas the Treasury Officer, Madhepura should have been made a party. Taking into account that there is no opposition to the said prayer for correction in the description of respondents no. 2 and 3 by the learned counsel for the State, who has in fact not appeared when the case has been called out, this Court would direct that the description of respondents no. 2 and 3 in the order dated 20.5.2011 shall be read as follows: Respondent no.2- “Commissioner of Excise and Prohibition, Govt. of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan (New Secretariat), Baily Road, Patna” Respondent no.3- “The Treasury Officer, Madhepura”. 2 The order of this Court dated 20.5.2011 shall stand modified to the aforementioned extent. I.A.No. 6725/2011 is accordingly disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/