Rakesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14769 of 2014 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Shri Umeshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Nagarpalika Chouk, Begusarai holding Power of attorney and Caretaker of Shambhu Prasad Singh, Son of Shridhar Prasad Singh of Nagarpalika Chouk, Begusarai, Police Station and District - Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar represented through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat Building, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Begusarai.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Begusarai.

5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Begusarai.

6. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms at Begusarai.

7. The Station Head Officer, Lakho out post within the district of Begusarai. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Prasad Ambastha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mallik, AC to SC-4 For the Intervenor : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-09-2016 Heard the parties.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the reliefs enumerated in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, which reads as follows:- "That this application is directed for issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, order or orders and/or direction or directions for the following reliefs:- (a) For issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to take necessary actions to save the petitioner from deprivation of his landed property and possession thereof from invasion at the instance of unscrupulous persons.

(b) For any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."

From reading of the paragraph 1 of the writ petition

Patna High Court CWJC No.14769 of 2014 (4) dt.06-09-2016 itself it is apparent that there are certain allegations against certain private individuals, but those private individuals have not been impleaded as party respondents in the present writ petition. In absence of those private individuals the issues raised in the present proceeding cannot be gone into. The writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties.

In above view of the matter, the present writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U