IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7847 of 2003 UPENDRA NARAIN CHOUHAN, Son of Sri Rambhaju Chouhan, resident of village Jalalgarh, P.S. and District Purnea … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna 2. Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna 3. Inspector General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koshi Range, Saharsa 5. Superintendent of Police, Saharsa 6. Superintendent of Rail Police, Jamalpur 7. National Human Right Commission, Delhi through its Chairman … Respondents. ----------- 7. 7.12.2009 No one appears for the petitioner. In fact the same was the conduct of the counsel for the petitioner when the case was earlier called out on 17.11.2003, 17.12.2003 and 16.3.2004. This writ application in fact was also dismissed for default on 16.3.2003 but was subsequently restored. Again however the same thing has happened today. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: “i) For quashing of District Rail Order bearing memo No. 180 dated 22.2.2003 issued under the signature of Superintendent of Rail Police, Jamalpur whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs. 47,715/- has been ordered to be recovered 2 from the salary of the petitioner @ Rs.3000/- per month in 16 instalments on account of payment of compensation to the widow of late Sajjan Kamath, who died in police custody in the year 1994, in terms of the order of National Human Right Commission. ii) For quashing of Fax message No. 385 dated 12.2.2003 issued under the signature of S.P., Saharsa by which Suptd. of Rail Police (S.R.P.), Jamalpur was directed to recover the aforesaid sum of Rs. 47,715/- from the salary of the petitioner. iii) For a direction on the respondents to produce the decision of the Committee which held the petitioner responsible for custodial death of Sajjan Kamath behind his back and the same be set aside. iv) For a direction on the respondents to refund the first instalment of Rs. 3000/- which has already been recovered from the salary of the petitioner for the month of March, 2003. v) For a direction on the respondents restraining them from making any further recovery from the salary of the petitioner as per the direction of S.P., Saharsa/ S.R.P., Jamalpur.” 3 In view of the fact that no one appears for the petitioner to press the aforementioned relief and the counsel for the petitioner in past also has hardly shown any interest in the matter, this Court is again constrained to dismiss this application for default. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/