Abhishek Parmar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8028 of 2024 ====================================================== Abhishek Parmar Son of Suresh Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Digha Surya Digha Compound, Flat No.- 504, D.B. Block, Patna-11. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary Department of Science and Technology, New Secretariate, Patna (Bihar). 2.

The Director Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bihta, Patna. 3.

The Registrar Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bihta, Patna. 4.

The Deputy Registrar Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bihta, Patna. 5.

The Administration and Establishment (Estb. Section) Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bihta, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Navin Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25 Mr.Arif Daula Siddiqui, AC to SC-25 For IIT Patna :

Mr.Nalesh Dikshit, Advocate Ms.Kalpana, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 27-06-2024

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s):- "1(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs order/ orders/ direction / directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.08.2023 as contained in Annexure-5 passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology IIT, Bihta, Patna whereby and whereunder the termination of the allotment of shop (kiosk) from IIT Campus Bihta and requested to vacate the allotment space by 25.08.2023 which appears to be illegal perverse

Patna High Court CWJC No.8028 of 2024(2) dt.27-06-2024 2/2 and said order passed on wrong grounds without complying the principles of natural justice.

(ii) Further stay the vacating order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 3."

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law, including that of filing a civil suit before the learned Civil Court having competent jurisdiction, for redressal of his aforesaid grievances. Liberty so sought is granted.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Saurav/- U