Chandni Devi Choudhary v. The Union Of India,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9708 of 2022 ====================================================== Chandni Devi Choudhary W/o Shri Ram Kishore Choudhary, R/o House No. 94, Red Cross Road, P.S.- Adampur, District Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The Union of India, through the Chairman cum Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi. 2.
The Chairman cum Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.
3.
The General Manager (Bihar), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Patna.
4.
The Senior Regional Manager Food Corporation of India, Arunachal Building, Exhibition Road, Patna.
5.
The Area Manager Food Corporation of India, District Office, Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Additional Solicitor General ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 27-04-2023 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :- "(i) For issuance of writ, rule or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the representation dated 08.11.2021, whereby it has been represented by the petitioner to the respondent authorities to vacate the unauthorized occupancy of the office of The Food Corporation of India, Bhagalpur from the premises of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9708 of 2022(2) dt.27-04-2023 2/3 (ii) For further directing the respondent authorities to make the payment of the rental dues of the petitioner for remaining in the premises wherein the Office of Food Corporation of India, Bhagalpur has been functioning and the rental dues have accrued in favor of the petitioner from October, 2012 to till date, which amounts to approximately to Rs.40,73,420/-, since the respondent authorities are not disputing their occupancy nor they are raising any kind of tenancy dispute.
(iii) For directing the respondent authorities to act in accordance with law and for directing the respondent athorities who are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India to refrain from acting in unjust, invalid. arbitrary and autocratic manner, so that the general public does not loose its faith on the State and its authorities. (iv) For directing the respondent authorities to make the payment of damages to the petitioner which she has suffered due to the autocratic and despotic action/inaction of the respondent authorities.
(v) For holding to the effect that the respondent authorities by their conduct are engaged in unauthorized occupancy of the premises belonging to the petitioner"
Patna High Court CWJC No.9708 of 2022(2) dt.27-04-2023 3/3 After some arguments, 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. Liberty so sought, is granted.
The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U