IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3803 of 1993 GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH SON OF SRI VISHWANATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BATHRAUL LALGANJ, P.S. LALGANJ, DISTRICT- VAISHALI 2. RAJIV KUMAR SON OF SHRI BIPIN CHANDRA JAISWAL, RESIDENT OF MAHENAR, P.S. MAHANAR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI 3. HARENDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF SHRI MANGAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF CHAKRAM, DAS, P.S. AND DISTT. VAISHALI. 4. PREM KUMAR SINGH SON OF SHRI RAMANAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF KAMALPUR, P.S. BIDUPUR,DISTT. VAISHALI 5. DILIP KUMAR SINGH SON OF SHRI PANCHDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF FATEHPUR, P.S. RAGHOPUR, DISTT. VAISHALI 6. ARUN KUMAR SON OF RAM ISHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF JARAGH RAMPUR, PS.& DISTT- VAISHALI 7. KUSHESHWAR SINGH SON OF SHRI JANAK SINGH, RESIDENT OF WARISPUR PATTI, P.S. BARISHPURPATTI, DISTRICT- VAISHALI 8. MAHESH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM NARAIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VAISHALI, P.S.& DISTT-VAISHALI 9. RAJKISHORE ROY SON OF SHRI JALIM ROY, RESIDENT OF MAHNAR, P.S. MAHANAR, DISTT- VAISHALI 10. NAWAL KISHORE ROY SON OF SHRI JAGDISH ROY, RESIDENT OF BHIKHANPURA, P.S. SAHDIA, DISTRICT- VAISHALI 11. BINOD KUMAR SON OF SHRI ANANDLAL ROY, RESIDENT OF RASOOLPUR FATEH, P.S. GARAUL, DISTT. VAISHALI 12. RAM CHANDRA PASWAN, SON OF SHRI YOGENDRA PASWAN, RESIDENT OF KAILA JALALPUR, P.S. GARAUL, DISTRICT- VAISHALI………………………. PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI 3. THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE BHARAT COKING COAL ,LIMITED, KOYALA BHAWAN, KOYLA NAGAR, DHANBAD,DISTRICT- DHANBAD 5.THE GENERAL MANAGER ( SALES ) B.C.C.L. KOYLA BHAWAN, KOYLA NAGAR, DHANBAD, DISTRICT- DHANBAD……………………………… RESPONDENTS 4 19-2-2010 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners or on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of the writ petition shows that petitioners were aggrieved by a change of policy in respect of sale, purchase and storage 2 Naresh of coal as introduced on 2nd December, 1992. The petitioners wanted that earlier policy of 21st. April 1992 should have continued as good policy. Such policy relating to essential items like coal can be changed from time to time and obviously the petitioners appear to have lost their interest in the subject matter. However, since nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Birendra Prasad Verma,J)