Bhikhari Lal Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2197 of 2019 ====================================================== Bhikhari Lal Prasad Singh, aged about 47 years, (Male), son of Late Narayan Prasad Singh, resident of vill.-Phuhia, P.S.- Bithan, Distt.-Samastipur at present Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Salha Chandan, Block-Bithan, Distt.- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Rural works department, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Engineer In-Chief, Rural works Department, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The District Magistrate, Samastipu.r 5.

The Supertending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works, AnchalSamastipur. 6.

The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Rosera. 7.

The Circle Officer, Anchal-Bithan, Distt.-Samastipur. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjit Kumar Yadav, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar, AC to AAG 6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN) 02-05-2019 We have heard Mr. Suraj Narayan Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned AC to AAG 6.

The issue raised by the petitioner stands noted in our order dated 07.02.2019 and the grievance raised is in relation to delayed construction of R.C.C. Bridge at Phuliya Ghat in the District of Samastipur.

After filing several affidavits that a purposeful

Patna High Court CWJC No.2197 of 2019(6) dt.02-05-2019 2/2 affidavit is filed by the Secretary, Rural Works Department on 16.04.2019 and in which it is stated that the work would be completed at the end of March 2021. It is stated that delayed completion is on account of acquisition of land for over coming problems that was being faced in construction of bridge. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the statement made in paragraph-15 of the supplementary counter affidavit referred to above, we do not feel any necessity for keeping the writ petition pending which is accordingly disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) ( Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Archana/ Surendra/- U