Dr. Kamal Deo Sharama v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1399 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6961 of 2015 ====================================================== Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Son of Late Saryug Sharma, resident of VillageBaijnathpur, Police Station- Saurbazar, District- Saharsa. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Zila Parishad, Saharsa through the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Saharsa.

3.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Saharsa-cum-Deputy Development Commisssioner, Saharsa.

4.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Saharsa.

5.

Rajniti Paswan, Executive Magistrate, Sadar Saharsa. 6.

The Station House Officer, Sadar Police Station, Saharsa. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Syed Firoz Raza, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Anjani Kumar, A.A.G.-4 Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 05-03-2019 Heard Shri Syed Firoz Raza, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General No.4 for the State and also representing the Zila Parishad, Saharsa.

The appellant was granted a licence by way of an allotment of space for a period of 11 months to enable him to run his Ayurvedic clinic in a temporary hutment. Instead of that,

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1399 of 2018(2) dt.05-03-2019 2/3 the appellant appears to have raised a brick-wall and therefore he was put to notice immediately after the allotment as to why the allotment be not cancelled. A reply was given by the appellant to the show cause notice, which was rejected and the premises was directed to be demolished. It is against the same that the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal was filed in the year 2015. The petition has been dismissed as the learned counsel for the appellant failed to appear before the learned single Judge.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the raising of the brick-wall was only as a temporary measure as the roof was covered by asbestos sheets and therefore the appellant never intended to raise any pucca construction. The contention therefore is, as a matter of fact, that there was no violation or breach on the part of the appellant and therefore the appellant should be allowed to retain the said allotted area.

We have considered the submissions raised and in view of the fact as on record, the raising of a brick-wall does not appear to have been stipulated in the allotment which was made to the appellant. In such circumstances, the direction for demolition does not appear to be arbitrary or otherwise against

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1399 of 2018(2) dt.05-03-2019 3/3 the terms and conditions of allotment.

In the event, the appellant removes the said pucca structure, it will be open to the Zila Parishad to consider his request for fresh allotment on such terms and conditions as may be applicable.

The appeal stands disposed of.

(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) PNM/Saif U