Saurav Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6935 of 2019 ====================================================== Saurav Kumar Sharma S/o Late Bipin Bihari Das R/o Salona Kunj, Near Pani Tanki, Kidwaipuri, Budda Colony, P.S.- Kotwali, Patna, Bihar- 800001 presently residing at Flat No.604, Mani Orchid Apartment, Above Amway Office, Near Neelkanth Sweets, RPS More, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar801503. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Patna Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner, Maurya Lok, Patna.

3.

The Vigilance Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok, Patna. 4.

Executive Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Kankarbagh, Patna. 5.

M/s Meridian Construction India Ltd. through its Chairman cum Managing Director Mr. Abu Dojana having its registered office at Haroon Nagar, Sector-II, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, Dist- Patna. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Puneet Siddhartha, Advocate Mr. Aryan Sinha, Advocate Ms. Shambhawi Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent State:

Mr.Yogendra Pd. Sinha (Aag7) Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-7 For the PMC :

Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-11-2019 An enquiry report dated 07.05.2018, submitted by the Executive Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna, in Vigilance Case No.26B of 2018, is being questioned in the present writ application. In the said report, the construction of a building, made by the petitioner, has been found to be against sanctioned plan of Patna Municipal Corporation. Mr. Aryan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that though the petitioner has

Patna High Court CWJC No.6935 of 2019(2) dt.25-11-2019 2/2 submitted his objection against the said impugned report, his objection is not being considered properly by the competent authority.

In my opinion, this is not a fit case for issuing a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari against a report of respondent No.4. The petitioner has already raised objection before the competent authority in Vigilance Case No. 26B of 2018. It goes without saying that the petitioner's objection against the said enquiry report shall have to be considered while deciding the Vigilance Case No. 26B of 2018.

This writ application stands disposed of.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pawan/- U