IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1096 of 2009 MANOJ KUMAR,, KHAIRA, PO JAMU,POLICE STATION PARASBIGHA, JEHANABAD/ASHANA NAGAR, RAJIV NAGAR, PATNA. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR THRU.CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR 3. SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, BIHAR 4. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 5. SRI V.VINAYAK, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,, PATNA 6. SHO, SHASTRI NAGAR POLICE STATION, PATNA 7. SRI KAMOD KUMAR, SHO, SHASTRI NAGAR, PATNA 8. SHO, PANDARAK POLICE STATION, PATNA 9. SRI RATN KISHORE JHA, SHO, PANDARAK POLICE STATION, PATNA 10. SRI J.P.SINGH, APP CUM IN CHARGE PP, SESSIONS COURT, PATNA 11. SRI RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, SPL PP, SESSIONS COURT, PATNA 12. SRI NITISH KUMAR, CHIEF MINISTER, BIHAR. 13. SRI P.K.SHAHI, ADVOCATE GENERAL, BIHAR 14. SRJ AKHILESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, ADVOCATE, PHC 15. SRI GAURANG CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE, PHC 16. SRI RAJIV RANJAN SINGH @ LALLAN SINGH, PATNA. ----------- 2. 17.09.2010. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents, especially the Chief Secretary & the Director General of Police, Bihar to see that witness of Complaint case no. 2603C of 2009, namely, Ramanand Singh be not forcibly produced by police at the instance of accused, Sri Nitish Kumar (the Chief Minister, Bihar), Sri P.K.Shahi (Advocate General, Bihar) and others, who too are accused in the aforesaid complaint case for his deposition in the court of Sri Narad Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna in order to interfere with the proceeding of Complaint case no. 2603C of 2009. Originally, the writ petition was filed through Sri Dinu Kumar and Sri Arvind Kr. Sharma, learned advocates. Today Sri Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior advocate, appears for the petitioner on basis of fresh Vakalatnama issued by petitioner 2 Manoj Kumar in favour of learned advocate, Sri Vikash Kumar. The petitioner now through his new counsel Sri Vikash Kumar has filed two I.As. bearing I.A.Nos. 1878 & 1879 of 2010. I.A. No.1878/10 has been filed for ignoring the Vakalatnama dated 4.11.2009 executed by petitioner in favour of earlier advocates Sri Dinu Kumar and Arvind Kr.Sharma. It has further been prayed that petitioner be permitted to be represented through the new counsel. I.A.No. 1879/2010 has been filed for withdrawal of the writ petition as he has already filed petition for withdrawal of Complaint case no. 2603C of 2009, presently pending in the court of Sri C.K.Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna stating, inter alia, that no such incident as alleged took pace and he does not intend to prosecute the complaint petition. In both Interlocutory applications, it has also been stated that petitioner expressed his desire not to prosecute the writ petition and requested Sri Dinu Kumar to withdraw the same. However, Sri Kumar refused to accept his instruction and even refused to issue no objection despite request. Sri Dinu Kumar, learned advocate who initially filed the writ petition, submits that petitioner never approached him for withdrawal of the writ petition, nor he approached him to issue no objection in the case. He submits that had the petitioner approached him or Shri A.K.Sharma, Advocate for disengaging them from case, they would have had no reservation in issuing ‘No Objection’. He 3 submits that he does not have any objection, if the petitioner is allowed to be represented through another counsel. He however states that the accusations and allegations made against him in the Interlocutory Applications are mischievous and false. Sri S.K.Ghosh, learned Addl Advocate General appears for the State. With the consent of parties, the writ petition and Interlocutory Applications are being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The petitioner is permitted to be represented through his new counsels. The I.A.No. 1878 of 2010 is thus allowed. The Valkatnama filed by the earlier learned counsels, Shri Dinu Kumar/Arvind Kumar Sharma is ignored. The petitioner has prayed for withdrawal of writ petition vide I.A. No. 1879 of 2010, which is allowed and consequently the writ petition stands withdrawn. The insinuation or averments made against Sri Dinu Kumar, Advocate would not prejudice or adversely affect him. Shashi. ( Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)