Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9369 of 2019 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar S/o Dr. Bipin Bihari Sandwar Residing at Kailashpuri Colony, Mirjanhat, P.s.- Mojahidpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna 2.

The Principal Secretary Department of Urban Development and Housing, Bihar, Patna 3.

The Departmental Public Grievance Redressal Officer Urban Development and Housing Department, Bihar, Patna 4.

The Divisional Commissioner Patna Division-cum-1st Appellate Authority, Patna 5.

The District Public Grievance Redressal Officer Patna 6.

The Real Estate Regulatory Authority through its Chairperson, 6th Floor, Bihar State Building Construction Corporation Campus, Hospital Road, Hathikhana, Raj Banshi Nagar, Patna 7.

The Chairperson Real Estate Regulatory Authority, 6th Floor, Bihar State Building Construction Corporation Campus, Hospital Road, Hathikhana, Raj Banshi Nagar, Patna 8.

The Executive Officer Nagar Parishad, Danapur, Patna 9.

Chitra Homes Private Limited through its Managing Director Mr. Vikash Kumar son of Sri Someshwar Lal, 307, Adharshila Complex, South Gandhi Maidan, Patna-1 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Subash Prasad Singh, GA-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 26-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Having regard to the nature of dispute and the availability of forum of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence. However, liberty

Patna High Court CWJC No.9369 of 2019(2) dt.26-04-2019 2/2 shall be available to the petitioner to approach the Real Estate Regulatory Authority who is vested with the necessary power to take care of the interest of the purchaser.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already approached the Real Estate Regulatory Authority vide Annexure-5 which is still pending. Considering the aforesaid, the Court request the chair person Real Estate Regulatory Authority to take care of the interest of the petitioner and dispose of the representation contained as Annexure-5 at the earliest in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the present writ application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) mdrashid/- U