Patna High CourtCWJC/11422/2014disposal with observation

Arshad Ahmad And ORS v. The Chief Manager Central Bank Of India And ORS

2015-10-30Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11422 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Arshad Ahmad

3. Shamshad Akhtar

5. Irshad Akhtar

7. Shadab Akhtar @ S. Akhtar All are sons of Late Zafar Ahmad Residents of Zahir House, Main Road, Raxaul, P.O. AND P.S. Raxul, District East Champaran (Motihari). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Bihar Circle, Patna.

2. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pawapuri House, Bhagwanpur Chowk, Muzaffarpur.

3. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Near Balua Tal, Motihari, District East Champaran.

4. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Maskara Complex Arya Samraj Road, Raxaul, District East Champaran at Motihari.

5. The Sub Divisional Officer cum House Controller, Raxaul, District East Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Purnendu Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-10-2015 Heard Sri Raghunandan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Purnendu Singh, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4 / officials of Central Bank of India.

The petitioners invoking writ jurisdiction of this court have prayed for directing the respondent no. 1 to 4 to pay rent in view of the order dated 7.8.2013 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer -cum-House Controller in House Control Case No. 04M of 2013.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11422 of 2014 (6) dt.30-10-2015 2/2 In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent / Central Bank of India and stand has been taken that against the order of the House Controller, Central Bank of India has preferred an Appeal vide House Control Appeal Case No. 01 of 2014-15 in the court of Appellate Authority- cumCollector, East Champaran, Motihari. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before the Appellate Authority the petitioners, who are landlord have already appeared and filed their response.

In view of pendency of the Appeal instead of passing any positive order in the present writ petition, the court considers that the writ petition can be disposed of with observation that the Appellate Authority i.e. Collector may take appropriate steps, so that, Appeal may be disposed of at the earliest without unnecessary delay.

Since both the parties are present before this court, both are directed to render full co-operation to the court below for early disposal of the Appeal.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U