Sanjeev Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6973 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Sanjeev Kumar, Son Of Sri Musharu Mehta Resident Of At + P.O. Sadpur, Via - Lakhminia, District Begusarai, Bihar.

2. Kumar Sanjeev Son Of Sri Arjun Prasad Resident Of Village At + P.O. Soradih, Via Khushrupur, Police Station Harnouth (Nalanda).

3. Rohit Kumar Sinha Son Of Sri Binay Kumar Sinha Resident Of Village 'Kusum Sadan' Hanuman Nagar, South Of Railway Wireless Tower, Siwan Bihar.

4. Devendra Kumar Son Of Sri Ganesh Prasad Residing At E-89, Kankarbagh, Patna - 20.

5. Md. Meraj Alam Son Of Manzoor Alam P.O. And Police Station Nashriganj, District Rohtas.

6. Navin Kumar Son of Sri Virendra Prasad Singh Resident of Village Karnpur, P.O. And P.S. Shambhuganj, District Banka.

7. Ajay Kumar Mehra, Son Of Kamleshbari Mehra Resident Of Village Phulkaha, Post Kamlabari Via Jaynagar, District Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-Cum-Agricultural Development Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director Land Conservation-Cum-Project Director-Cum-Chief Extension Officer, Bihar Water Shed Development Society, Patna, Bihar.

3. The Chairman-Cum-Collector, Water Shed Cell-Cum-Data Centre, Rohtas, Kaimur.

4. The Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Harish Kumar, GP 32.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT 09-02-2015 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents is present and submits that this writ application, in view of the impugned order dated 03.09.2013 having been passed by the Director of VANI System Pvt. Ltd, is not maintainable because the said VANI System Pvt. Ltd. is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12

Patna High Court CWJC No.6973 of 2014 (3) dt.09-02-2015 2/2 of the Constitution of India.

3. From perusal of the impugned order and the averment made in the writ application, it would be more clear that the petitioners' grievance is against VANI System Pvt. Ltd. and, therefore, when such organization does not fulfil the test of being a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, this writ application cannot be said to be maintainable before this Court.

That being so, this writ application must fail and is hereby dismissed.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U