Mauje Mahto v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7238 of 2014 ====================================================== Mauje Mahto, son of Late Raudi Bhagat, resident of village - Madhopur, Roshan, P.S. Dumra, District - Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Collector, Sitamarhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shanti Kumar Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satyendra Rai, AC to SC-30 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-01-2015 Heard the parties.

In view of the nature of grievances raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice shall be sub-served, if the petitioner is granted liberty to file a comprehensive representation with all supporting documents before the respondent District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, raising all the pleas, which have been raised in the present proceeding. It is ordered accordingly. If such a comprehensive representation is filed on behalf of the petitioner within a period of one month from today with a certified copy of the present order, then the respondent District Magistrate, Sitamarhi or any other competent authority of the respondent State shall be obliged to consider and decide the claims raised on behalf of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order at an early date preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such comprehensive representation by the petitioner.

If on consideration of the materials, the competent authority comes to a conclusion that the claims raised on behalf of the petitioner are

Patna High Court CWJC No.7238 of 2014 (2) dt.13-01-2015 admissible to him, then the consequential orders shall also be issued for grant of such admissible claims without any unnecessary further delay.

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claims raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition and the same is left to be decided by the competent authority strictly in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U