Shashi Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14101 of 2014 ====================================================== Shashi Ranjan son of Late Nageshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village Khanpur English, P.O. Khanpur Mal, P.S. Bath, District - Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

3. Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Patna.

4. Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Bhagalpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. N. P. Singh, Advocate Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, G.A.-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 09-03-2015 The petitioner approached this Court by way of this public interest litigation complaining that though a road under the Prime Minister Gramin Sarak Yojana in Pocket No.BR/06/53 running to his village has been commenced in the year 2009, it has not been completed as yet. He stated that on account of delay in execution of the work, the residents in the village and surrounding villages are facing difficulty in having access to other places.

Respondent no.2 filed a detailed counter affidavit furnishing the particulars of the progress in the work and the cause for delay.

Patna High Court CWJC No.14101 of 2014 (2) dt.09-03-2015 2/2 Across the bar it is stated that the work has been completed in January, 2015 itself.

Heard Sri S. N. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Namrata Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has a genuine grievance about noncompletion of the road which was started in the year 2009. May be on account of initiative taken by the petitioner, the respondents have speed up the work and it has been completed in January, 2015.

With this, the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and, accordingly, the petition is closed. (L. Narasimha Reddy, CJ) (Vikash Jain, J) Sunil/- U