Nagrik Adhikar Manch A Society v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4890 of 2016 ====================================================== Nagrik Adhikar Manch A Society through it's State Convener Shakti Sadan, Madan Ji Ka Hatha, Pakri, Arrah - 802301 through it's State Convener Sri Bharat Singh, Son of Late Rama Nand Singh, Resident of Pakri, P.O. + P.S. - Pakri, District - Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Chief Engineer, Department of Road Construction (NH Wing), Bihar, Patna.

4. The Bihar State Road Development Corporation Ltd. Patna through it's Managing Director.

5. The Managing Director, Bihar State Road Development Corporation Ltd., Patna.

6. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of India, Delhi.

7. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur.

8. The District Magistrate, Rohtas.

9. The District Magistrate, Buxar

10. The District Magistrate, Kaimur.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jawed Gaffar Khan, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG-IX For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, ASG Mr. A.B. Mathur, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 21-09-2016 Heard Mr. Jawed Gaffar Khan, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. S.D. Yadav, learned AAGIX, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. Heard also Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of

Patna High Court CWJC No.4890 of 2016 (2) dt.21-09-2016 2/2 Respondent No.5, and Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned ASG, appearing for Respondent No.6.

Because of the fact that the Contractor, who had been allotted to the work of construction, in question, has already raised disputes, which have fallen in litigation, this Court is not inclined, at this stage, to pass any order, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as any order, passed herein, may lead to multiplicity of the proceedings.

This writ petition is, therefore, closed with the liberty given to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate provision of law as may be permissible for the remedy of his grievance.

(I.A. Ansari,CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U