Praful Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16492 of 2016 =========================================================== Praful Kumar, Son of Rajendra Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Chowk Shikarpur, Darabtoli, P.S. Chowk, Patna City, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction, Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Secretary, P.H.E.D. Patna.

4. The Commissioner, Patna.

5. The District Magistrate, Patna.

6. The Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.

7. The Project Manager, IRCON International, Patna.

8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna City.

9. The S.H.O., Chowk, Patna City.

.... .... Respondent =========================================================== For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Prasad Yadav- AAG-11 Ms. Archana, AC to AAG-11 For the Corporation : Mr. S P. Verma, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 28-03-2017 The petition has filed this writ petition in public interest and the grievance of the petitioner when the petition was filed on 20th September, 2016 was that in January, 2017, 350th Birth anniversary of Sri Guru Govind Singh Ji Maharaj, the 10th Guru of Shiks Community, is to be celebrated in the city of Patna and as certain constructions of drainage, levelling of culvert and laying down of water pipe line, including electric cable, is not being undertaken properly, the writ petition was filed.

It is common ground that 350th Birth celebration of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16492 of 2016 dt.28-03-2017 2/2 Guru Govind Singh Ji Maharaj is already over and, therefore, now indulgence into the matter is not called for. In case, the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the manner in which the constructions were done or undertaken or with regard to any illegality in the construction work done, the petitioner may take recourse to the remedy of making a complaint to the Lokayukta Organization or the Vigilance authority of the State Government who may look into the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner.

With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, for the present, finding no indulgence made into the matter, the petition stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) Sunil/- AFR/NAFR N. A. F. R.

CAV DATE N. A.

Uploading Date 31.03.2017 Transmission Date