Sargun Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.485 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14050 of 2021 ====================================================== Sargun Prasad Singh Son of Late Faudi Singh Resident of Village - Punaul, Police Station - Tankuppa, Block - Tankuppa, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna namely Mr. Sanjay Kumar Aggrawal. 2.

The Engineer - in - Chief, Water Resources, South Bihar, Patna namely Mr. Rabindra Kumar Shankar.

3.

The District Magistrate, Gaya namely Tyag Ranjan SM 4.

The Superintending Engineer, Tilaiya Canal Division, Gaya namely Mr. Manoranjan Verma.

5.

The Executive Engineer, Tailaiya Nagar Division, Wazirganj, District- Gaya namely Mr. Amrednra Kumar Singh.

6.

The Sub Divisional Engineer, Tilaiya Nahar Sub Division, Wazirganj, DistrictGaya namely Mr. Ajit Kumar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, GA 2 Mr. Binay Kr. Pandey, AC to GA 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 09-10-2023 The present M.J.C. No. 485 of 2022 is filed for noncompliance of the order dated 24.08.2021 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14050 of 2021.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is in the Public Interest Litigation. The allegation in the Public Interest Litigation read with the representation that the concerned Executive Engineer is stated to have blocked the water canals to the petitioner's village

Patna High Court MJC No.485 of 2022(8) dt.09-10-2023 2/2 which has resulted in flow of water to a different village. In this regard, the petitioner's representation was considered on 04.10.2023 after lapse of about two years.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Clause (c) at page No. 6 of the order dated 24.08.2021 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14050 of 2021, petitioner has not been heard. The same cannot be examined at this stage for the reasons that grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and it is not adverse to the petitioner's grievance as is evident from the order dated 04.10.2023.

4. Accordingly, present M.J.C./contempt petition stands dropped reserving liberty to question the validity of the order dated 04.10.2023, if the petitioner is still aggrieved.

5. For delay in implementation, petitioner is entitled to some cost and it is quantified @ Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). Cost shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. Pending I.A. (s), if any, stands disposed of. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Arun Kumar Jha, J) GAURAV S./- U