Chandra Kant Bhushan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14200 of 2012 =========================================================== Chandra Kant Bhushan, son of Sri Kedar Singh, resident of Village- Kundli, P.S.- Fatua, District-Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited, through its General Manager, Shekhpura, Patna.

3. The Deputy General Manager (Technical), Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited, Patna.

4. The Deputy General Manager (Technical), Project Action Unit State Road Development Corporation Limited, House No. 477 D, Doctors Colony, Bihar Shariff, District-Nalanda.

5. The Chief Engineer Kendriya Nirupan Sanghathan, Public Works Department, Viswesaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

6. The Executive Engineer, State High Way Division, Biharsharif, District- Nalanda

7. The Collector, Patna.

8. The Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif.

9. The Block Development Officer, Hilda, District- Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha AAG-2 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 19-01-2015 The petitioner claims to be a social worker, resident of Kundli Village of Patna District. According to him, a plan was prepared for constructing Highway No.78 from Bihta to Sarmera. His grievance is that the respondents are deviating from the original plan, and if the road is to be constructed according to the revised plan, the Government Middle School at Kanchanpur Village, Fatua Block is likely to be demolished. He wants the respondents to ensure

Patna High Court CWJC No.14200 of 2012 dt.19-01-2015 2/2 that the school is not demolished or otherwise disturbed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

The writ petition was filed way back in the year 2012. It is not known as to whether the road has been laid by this time and if so the contours thereon. However, if the road has not been laid yet, a suggestion or the complaint made by the petitioner can certainly be taken into account.

We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition directing that if the road has been laid, no further steps need be taken. If, on the other hand, road was not laid at village Kanchanpur, the suggestion, which the petitioner may make, shall be taken into account. Interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(L. Narasimha Reddy, CJ) (Gopal Prasad, J) Sunil/- U