IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.17056 of 2010 ==================================================== Bijesh Kumar, Son of Sri Tipan Singh, resident of Village- Raghopur, Police Station-Rani Talab, District-Patna. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India. 2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Ministry, New Delhi-110 003. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Home Ministry, Swatantra Senani Prabhag, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. 4. The Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Home (Special), Bihar, Patna. 5. District Magistrate, Patna. 6. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paliganj, District-Patna. 7. The Anchal Adhikari, Bikram, Patna. 8. Rajendra Singh, son of Late Madho Singh, resident of Village- Raghopur, Patut, Police Station Rani Talab (Bikram), District-Patna. 9. Indradeo Singh, Son of Late Kailash Singh, resident of Village- Raghopur, Police Station Rani Talab (Bikram), District-Patna. …. …. Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Kant Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent UOI: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent State: Mrs. Nividita Nirvikar, G.P.-16 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4. 2.11.2010. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed in public interest. The complaint of the writ petitioner is in respect of Freedom Fighter’s pension sanctioned to the respondent nos. 8 and 9. The subject matter has been thrashed out by the Division Bench (Coram : Navin Sinha, J. and Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) under its order dated 15th April 2010 made on Letters Patent Appeal No. 899 of 2009, - 2 - preferred by the respondent no.8 herein, the concerned Freedom Fighter. Further it is indicated in the counter affidavit, pursuant to the observations made by the Division Bench, the Government of India has initiated appropriate action against the respondent nos. 8 and 9 for withdrawal of the Freedom Fighter’s pension sanctioned in their favour. In above view of the matter, the present petition does not call for further order. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)