Patna High CourtCWJC/1679/2015disposed

Sanjida Azeem v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-09-21Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra,The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1679 of 2015 ====================================================== Sanjida Azeem, Wife of Late B.I. Azeem, Advocate, Advocate Association, Patna High Court, residing at Azeem Mansion, New Azimabad Colony, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Sultanganj, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna

3. The Union of India, through its Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi.

4. The Secretary, Central Government Building Construction Department, New Delhi.

5. The Secretary, Archeological Department, Government of India, New Delhi.

6. The Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

7. The Principal Secretary, Cabinet Coordination, Government of Bihar, Patna.

8. The Engineer-in-Chief, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

9. The Executive Engineer, I/C High Court Repair and Maintenance. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. H.K. Akela, A.C. to PAAG-2 For High Court : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 21-09-2016 Heard Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. H.K. Akela, learned A.C. to PAAG-2, appearing on behalf of the Staterespondents. Heard also Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent-High Court.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1679 of 2015 (2) dt.21-09-2016 2/2 Considering the fact that this writ petition does not disclose that any heritage building of this Court was damaged, we are clearly of the view that the writ petitioner has not been able to make out a case calling for invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

This writ petition is, therefore, closed with the liberty given to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate provision of law as may be permissible.

(I.A. Ansari,CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U