Patna High CourtCWJC/7837/2016disposed

Raj Kishore v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-03-15Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh,The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7837 of 2016 =========================================================== Raj Kishore, S/o Shri Manohar Prasad Singh, R/o Village - Harnaut, Post- Harnaut, PS- Harnaut, District- Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Secretary, Rural Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Chairman, Bihar Water Pollution Board, Patna.

4. The Commissioner, Patna Commissionary , Patna.

5. The District Collector, Biharsharif, Nalanda.

6. The Circle Officer, Harnaut, Nalanda.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.K. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-4 Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 15-03-2017 Heard Mr. S.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anjani Kumar, A.A.G.-4 and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Grievance of the petitioner in this petition filed pro bono is that the authorities of Harnaut, Nalanda are not taking action by building a drainage system for removal of polluted water coming to the road between north of main gate of Harnaut office Block to Harnatu Police Sub-Grade.

3. Ventilating the aforesaid grievance, petitioner having

Patna High Court CWJC No.7837 of 2016 dt.15-03-2017 2/2 represented the authorities and the same having fallen on deaf ear, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Having considered the submissions made, we are of the considered view that for the present, interest of justice would be made in case Respondent No. 2 is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and instruct the concerned local authorities to look into the same and take substantive steps as are permissible under law for ventilating the grievance within a period of six months, failing which the petitioner shall have liberty to approach this Court afresh in accordance with law.

5. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) P.K.P.

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 16.03.2017 Transmission Date