IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.75 of 2011 DABALOO MANDAL @ NITYANAND CHAURASIA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. . ----------- 02. 06.04.2011 As prayed for, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the party name. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The prayer of the petitioner is that the respondent – State be directed to inform the petitioner as to how in many case petitioner is accused since petitioner is implicated in several cases which infringes his fundamental rights and liberty. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that the prayer as well as averments made in the writ application is vague and as such, petitioner is not entitled to get relief, as prayed for. Considering the submissions of the parties and the prayer made in the writ application, it appears that the relief sought for by the petitioner that State should inform to the petitioner, as to in how many cases petitioner is accused does not call for the exercise of discretionary power of this court in its writ jurisdiction. This being the position, this court finds no merit in the writ application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Jagdish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)