IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2504 of 1999 1. Prem Kumar Singh, son of late Radha Mohan Singh, resident of village and P.O. Jamhaur, District – Aurangabad, Proprietor of the Drug Manufacturing firm namely Dr. P.S. Burman & Company. 2. Nahid Tabassum W/o Dr. T.A. Lari, resident of C – 7, Sapna Apartment, Nayatola, Patna. 4 Proprietor of Unani Herbal Drugs. 3. Dr. Subash Chandra Ojha, son of Sri Kedar Nath Ojha, resident of village & P.O. Deokuli in the district of Buxar, Proprietor of Sri Krishna Pharmaceuticals, Bishambhar Nagar, Deokuli, Buxar. 4. Sheo Narayan Sharma son of late Bhikhari Choubey, resident of village Bikramganj, District Rohtas, Proprietor, Kamendra Chemical Industries at Bikramganj, Rohtas. ------------------- Petitioners. 1. The State of Bihar 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Health Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Director, Indigenous Medicine, Indigenous Directorate, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare Government of Bihar, Patna. ----------------- Respondents. ----------- 17 08.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The policy decision with regard to purchase of Medicines by the Department of Health, Government of Bihar, became a cause of the present litigation. Submission was that the decision in question was taken at the level of the Purchase Committee and it had no bearing in so far as the State Government is concerned. Annexure – 9 was stayed on 09.08.1999, but thereafter nothing much has come to be done and the writ application remained pending. - 2 - Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not in a position to state whether they are still interested in fighting the legal battle because they seem to have proved their point at the point of admission itself. Since then, the policy must have undergone change at the level of State Government and the basic essence of the litigation is therefore lost. The writ application is dismissed as having become infructuous. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)