IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10803 of 2007 GANESH RAI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 5.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A counter affidavit has been filed to the writ application also. This matter has been listed on a motion slip out of turn under the heading ‘orders’ at the request of the petitioner that he is allegedly covered by certain other orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13253 of 2003. Counsel for the State rightly points out that a counter affidavit has also been filed and it shall remain a matter for factual verification by the authorities if the petitioner was similarly situated as the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 13253 of 2003, when the statements already made in the counter affidavit shall also to be considered appropriately. This Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. The matter rests entirely in the domain of the respondents on facts and law whether the petitioner is similarly situated as that in C.W.J.C. No. 13253 of 2003. At this stage, the respondents will also have to 2 adequately deal with their counter affidavit filed in the present case, if the respondents take a stand at variance in any fresh order with that taken in the counter affidavit. In that manner, let the representation of the petitioner at Anenxure-3 be disposed off preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)