Patna High CourtCWJC/17487/2015disposed

Shakuntala Jha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-04-08Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh,The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17487 of 2015 ====================================================== Shakuntala Jha, D/o Late Ramdeo Jha, Resident of Village- Behri P.O.- Behri, P.S.- Sikta, Dist- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah.

3. The Circle Officer, Sikta, West Champaran.

4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Work Department, Bettiah.

5. Dilip Kumar Verma, MLA of Sikta, Resident of Shikarpur, P.S.- Shikarpur, Dist- West Champaran, Bettiah.

6. Brijesh Kumar S/o Rameshwar Prasad Village- Chauria Tola, P.O.- Dhoom Nagar, P.S.- Jagdishpur, Dist- West Champaran. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhagya Narayan Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Jai Shankar Barnawal, GA 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ) 08-04-2016 By making this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has expressed the grievance that the contract for construction of the road, which runs between Baisakhawa and Sikta, was given, under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana, to respondent No.6, namely, Brajesh Kumar, but despite the fact that the road was to be completed by 09.12.2009, the construction of road is still incomplete.

In view of the above, we, in the interest of justice, direct respondent No.2, namely, the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah, and respondent No.4, namely, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.17487 of 2015 (3) dt.08-04-2016 2/2 Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Bettiah, to look into the grievances of the petitioner and do the needful in accordance with law.

If necessary action is not taken by respondent No. 2 and/or respondent No.4, the petitioner shall remain at liberty to approach this Court for necessary direction(s) and/or for taking recourse to the provision of law as may be permissible. With the above, observations and directions, this writ application is closed.

(I.A. Ansari, ACJ) (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) Shashi.