AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Counsel for the petitioner is absent.
Heard Mr. M.K. Roy, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.2, 4 and 5.Â
Counsel for the respondent-Marketing Board submits that they have filed a counter-affidavit and have stated that the writ petition itself is
not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner never applied for and never took part in the settlement of the Mangla Hat, Chaibasa and
accordingly, he has got no locus-standi to question the settlement made in the matter. He further submits that as per the counter-affidavit, the
settlement has not been made in favour of respondent no.6 for the year, 2011-12 and therefore, the question of alleged settlement in favour of the
respondent no.6 as claimed by the writ petitioner does not arise.Â
Further the counsel for the respondents submits that as per the notice itself the settlement was made for the year, 2011-12 and accordingly, the
writ petition has become infructuous.Â
After hearing the counsel for the respondents and after being satisfied with the submissions made above ,this writ petition is hereby dismissed .Â