Prashant Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5803 of 2015 =========================================================== Prashant Kumar S/o Bhriguashram Prasad, Resident of Mohalla - Aandpuri, P.S.- Shree Krishnapuri, District-Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Bihar State Agriculture Produce Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan, Patna, repealed through its Administrator.

3. The Administrator, Bihar State Agriculture Produce Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan, Patna repealed.

4. The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Musalahpur repealed P.S. - Sultanpur, District- Patna through its Secretary.

5. The Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Musalahpur Market Committee, Musalahpur repealed P.S.- Sultanpur, District- Patna.

6. The District Magistrate, Patna.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. VERMA, AAG 3 Ms. Divya Verma, AC to AAG 3 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-09-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent-authorities to give possession to the petitioner of shop no. 31 at Rajbanshi Nagar which was allotted to him on 12.07.1997 by the then Bihar State Agriculture Produce Marketing Board, Patna and/or to allot other vacant shop or allot vacant plot near site no.1.

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner despite calls being repeated after an interval.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents appears.

4. From the averments made in the writ petition it

Patna High Court CWJC No.5803 of 2015 dt.04-09-2018 2/2 appears that the petitioner was allotted shop no. 3, Rajbanshi Nagar as far back as in the year 1997 but was not given possession of the said shop. The petitioner appears to have filed representations in the years 1997, 2000 and 2001 and more than a decade thereafter in the years 2013 and 2014 for redressal of his grievances. It is therefore evident that the petitioner is merely pursuing a stale claim.

5. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter as the petitioner has not acted with due diligence and there is considerable delay and laches on his part in approaching this Court after almost two decades.

6. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 15.09.2018 Transmission Date N.A.