← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/11009/2019dismissed

Mohammad Inamul Haque v. The State Of Bihar

2019-11-04Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11009 of 2019 ====================================================== Mohammad Inamul Haque, Son of Mohammad Hanif, R/o Mohalla-West Azimganj Momin Tola, Kharagpur, P.S. Kharagpur, District- Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Secretary Transport Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Sultan Palace, R Block, Patna.

3.

Regional Manager Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.

4.

Executive Officer, Haveli Kharagpur Nagar Panchayat Munger. 5.

Election Commission of India through Chief Election Officer Government of India, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.

6.

Sri Kumar Gautam, Son of Sri Surendra Prasad, R/o West Azimganj, P.S. Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar, Adv.

For the ECI :

Mr.Siddhartha Prasad, Adv.

For the Nagar Panchayat Haveli Kharagpur: Mr. Sanjay Mandal, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 04-11-2019 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had filed this writ application as a public interest litigation and has no personal lis involved. In other words, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ application in the present roster because the subject matter of the writ application, according to him itself is in the nature of a public interest litigation.

This Court finds from the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.11009 of 2019(2) dt.04-11-2019 2/2 petitioner had given the Hon'ble Division Bench to understand that he is challenging the contract awarded to respondent no.5 by the Road Transport Corporation. Since, in the present jurisdiction, this Court finds that the petitioner is unable to demonstrate his locus standi to challenge the contract awarded to respondent no.5, the Court finds no reason to entertain this writ application.

This writ application is, thus, dismissed but with liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy, if so advised, in accordance with law.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U