← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/3217/2021allowed

Geeta Bharti v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-18Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3217 of 2021 ====================================================== Geeta Bharti wife of Sri Rajesh Kumar Resident of House No. 1201, Radhakrishna Colony, Phulwarisharif, District- Patna at present residing at Road No. 1, Radhakrishna Colony, Near Beur More, P.S. Beur, Anisabad, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Patna Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner, Budh Marg, Patna.

2.

The Chief Executive Officer,Patna Muncipal Corporation New Capital Circle, Harding Road, Quarter No. 10, Patna.

3.

The Executive Officer, Patna Muncipal Corporation New Capital Circle, Harding Road, Quarter No. 10, Patna.

4.

Chandrika Prasad, Son of Late Prakash Chandra @ Prakash Prasad Resident of Radha Krishna Colony, Road No.- 1, near Beur More, Police StationBeur, District- Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Rai, Advocate For the PMC :

Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Abbas Haider, SC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-03-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

"That, this is an application praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the Notice as contained in Letter No. 133 dated 19/01/2021 (ANNEXURE- 3) issued under the signature of Respondent No. 3

Patna High Court CWJC No.3217 of 2021(10) dt.18-03-2024 2/3 directing the Petitioner to remove the encroachment from 20 Ft. Road of Roshan LalSahkari Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Limited, Patna within 72 hours from the receipt of the said Notice."

5. It is an admitted position that a complaint was filed by the respondent no. 4 directly in the Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna against the Patna Municipal Corporation and S.D.O., Sadar and an order has been passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat directing the Patna Municipal Corporation to remove the encroachment from the road. This kind of dispute is not maintainable in a Permanent Lok Adalat and it appears that the respondent no. 4, who is a retired D.I.G. is trying to get orders from an authority which has no jurisdiction to pass such orders.

6. It is an admitted position that the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat can never be for directing the removal of encroachment. If the respondent no. 4 wanted removal of encroachment then he could have approached appropriate authorities under law i.e., the Patna Municipal Corporation/ the Circle Officer/ the Sub Divisional Magistrate for removal of encroachment. The impugned order dated 20.12.2019 is wholly without jurisdiction.

7. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3217 of 2021(10) dt.18-03-2024 3/3

8. The impugned order dated 20.12.2019 and the consequential notice issued by the Executive Officer, New Capital Circle, Patna dated 18.01.2021/19.01.2021 are hereby quashed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U