2025:JHHC:17671-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6938 of 2004 1. Dilip Saw, son of Late Rashu Sao, R/o Birsa Chowk, Bypass Road, P.O.-Hinoo, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi 2. Anil Kumar Sharma, son of S.P. Sharma, R/o Kalyanpur, Singhmore, Hatia, P.O. & P.S.-Hatia, District-Ranchi ... ... ... ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Transport and Civil Aviation, Rachi 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Transport and Civil Aviation, Ranchi 4. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, through its Administrator, Patna (Bihar) 5. The Chief of Administration, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna (Bihar) … … ... Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 3009 of 2004 Bijay Kumar Dubey & Others ... ... ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others … … ... Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 3010 of 2004 Naresh Kumar Singh & Others ... ... ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others … … ... Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 3044 of 2004 Sriprakash Singh Amethia & Others ... ... ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others … … ... Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 3095 of 2004 Shyam Bihari Dubey & Others ... ... ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others … … ... Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 6707 of 2004 Bhimsen Singh & Others ... ... ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others … … ... Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 622 of 2005 Nagendra Prasad ... ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others … … ... Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 875 of 2005 Devi Sharan Singh ... ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others … … ... Respondents 2025:JHHC:17671-DB 2 ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the State: Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-II Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II Mr. Prabhat Kumar, S.C.-II ----- 15/03.07.2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the State submit that these writ petitions have become infructuous. 2. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J) Satish/Vikas/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)