IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.762 of 2008 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 9255/2002) Sujit Kumar Mukhopadhyay, S/o Late Dr. Bibhuti Bhushan Mukhopadhaya, presently posted as Inspector of Drugs, P.S.- Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhoom at Chaibasa ….. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 01. The State Of Bihar 02. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 03. Joint Secretary to the Government, Health Department Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 04. Deputy Secretary to the Government, Health Department Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 05. Madan Mohan Prasad, S/o Sri Surja Bansh Sharma, resident of village-Balsar, P.S.-Mehandia, P.O.- Belsor, District- Jehanabad, presently posted as Incharge State Drugs Controller-Cum-Chief Licensing Authority Jharkhand at Ranchi-834010 06. Shiv Narayan Sahu, S/o Late Baldeo Sahu, presently posted as Secretary-Cum-Deputy Drug Controller, Drugs Control Administration, Office of Health Drug Controller, Patna 07. Janardan Prasad Singh, Son of late Deoki Nandan Singh, presently posted as Licensing Authority Drugs Control Administration in the office of Health, Drug Controller, Patna 08. Sushil Kumar Rana, son of Late Dina Rana presently posted as Inspector of Drugs Deohar, P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar ….. Respondent /Respondents For the Appellant:- Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha For the State:- Mr. B.K. Sinha, AAG-II For Private Respondent:- Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Vilash Kumar, Advocate ---------------------------------- 14. 12.10.2011 When this L.P.A. has come up for hearing, Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court a notification bearing no. 2/Swa.-SDC-106- 2008/ni.-17 (II) seniority of the appellant. In view of 2 the same it is contended that this L.P.A. has become infructuous. But however learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he is not aware of the notification passed by the Government which has been brought before this Court for the first time. Accordingly, he sought liberty of this Court to agitate the same in accordance with law. Taking note of the submission made by counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that such liberty can be granted to the appellant, if he is aggrieved by such notification before the appropriate forum. Learned counsel for the appellant sought liberty to raise all the objection which has been raised in the present writ petition and also in the L.P.A. Accordingly such leave is granted to the appellant and he is permitted to question the gazette notification, if so aggrieved, and further liberty is granted to raise all objection before the appropriate Forum. With the above liberty the L.P.A. stands disposed. P.K. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)