Md. Sultan Hussain Idrishi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13204 of 2014 ====================================================== Md. Sultan Hussain Idrishi, Son of Md. Rizwan Siddiki, Resident of Moahalla- Rupganj, P.O.- Chapra, P.S.- Chapra, District- Saran, Chapra. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through the Additional Secretary, General Administrative Department, Bihar,Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran, Chapra.

4. The District Magistrate, Saran Division, Saran, Chapra

5. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Saran, Chapra. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kundan Kumar For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay (Ga12) Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 09-01-2015 This writ petition is filed in public interest with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct consensus of Ward No.29 of Saran, Chapra Nagar Parishad, Chapra.

According to the petitioner, more than fifty to sixty families under Ward Saran are omitted from the consensus operations.

Another grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not clearing the Khnuaa drainage.

Heard Shri Ranjeet Kumar, learned counsel

Patna High Court CWJC No.13204 of 2014 (2) dt.09-01-2015 2/2 for the petitioner, and Shri Ajay and Shri Rakesh Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the respondents.

On his own showing, the petitioner is the husband of an ex Ward Counselor of the Municipality. If either the wife of the petitioner or the petitioner had any grievance as regards the omissions or defects in the consensus, they ought to have raised it at that point of time. The consensus was conducted in 2011. It is a statutory operation and it cannot be interpolated indiscriminately. Further, the petitioner makes up a grievance as regards clearing of drainage on the one hand and alleged omissions in the consensus on the other.

We do not find any basis to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ) (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) K.C.jha/- U