IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.225 of 2009 1. MD.MUZAMIL S/O LATE MD. SALIM 2. MD. HARUN S/O LATE MD. SALIM 3. MD. QUAMRUJJAMA S/O LATE SALIM 4. MD. QUAMER @ SHAMS QUAMAR, S/O LATE MD. SALIM ALL R/O VILLAGE & P.O. AMOUR, P.S.-AMOUR, DISTRICT- PURNEA …………………………….APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, PURNEA 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PURNEA COMMISSIONARY 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BAISI, DISTRICT-PURNEA 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, AMOUR, DISTRICT- PURNEA 5. PRADEEP KUMAR ROY, S/O LATE RAM PRASAD ROY 6. SANTOSH KUMAR ROY S/O LATE RAM PRASAD ROY 7. BINOD KUMAR ROY S/O LATE RAM PRASAD ROY 8. SUMESH KUMAR ROY S/O LATE RAM PRASAD ROY 9. UMESH KUMAR ROY S/O LATE RAM PRASAD ROY 10. CHANDRA KALA W/O LATE RAM PRASAD ROY 11. SHRI PRASAD ROY S/O LATE HARI LAL ROY ALL R/O VILLAGE & P.O. AMOUR, P.S.-AMOUR, DISTRICT- PURNEA 12. MOSTT. UMA DEVI WO LATE JAGDISH ROY 13. ARJUN ROY S/O LATE JAGDISH ROY 14. BIPIN ROY S/O LATE JAGDISH ROY 15. SIPIN ROY S/O LATE JAGDISH ROY 16. ASHOK ROY S/O ANUPLAL ROY 17. MOSTT. SABITA DEVI W/O LATE GANGA ROY 18. RANJIT ROY S/O LATE GANGA ROY 19. SARWAN ROY S/O LATE GANGA ROY 20. BALJIT ROY S/O LATE GANGA ROY 21. SANJIT ROY S/O LATE GANGA ROY R/O VILLAGE & P.O. – AMOUR, P.S.- AMOUR, DISTRICT-PURNEA ……………………..RESPONDENTS. ----------- 6 04/11/2009 No one appears on behalf of appellants to press this appeal. Learned counsel for the State as well as for the respondent nos. 5 to 21 are present. On behalf of private respondents it has been submitted that in paragraph 5 of their counter affidavit it has been categorically asserted that the appellants had appeared through Vakalatnama before the S.D.O., Baisi, the appellate authority and their appearance was on 2 several dates as apparent from the order sheet Annexure-18A. On that basis it has been asserted that claim of the appellants in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that they had no notice of the appeal before the Subdivisional Officer is false. It appears from the order passed on 6.10.2009 that time was granted on the prayer of the counsel for the appellants so that if the appellants have any material to controvert the assertion made in the counter affidavit then that should be brought to the notice of the Court. The appellants have not filed any reply to the counter affidavit so far and nor the counsel has appeared to press the appeal. In the facts of the case, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin