Patna High CourtCWJC/10721/2017disposed

Md. Kafeel And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-08-17The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10721 of 2017 ===========================================================

1. Md. Kafeel son of Late Md. Ismail.

2. Md. Firoz son of Late Ainul Haque.

3. Md. Naushad son of Late Nurul Hoda.

4. Md. Jahangir son of Late Md. Zahid.

5. Syed Amjad Ali, son of Late Syed Md. Yunus. All are residents of Village+ P.O.- Chandan Patti, Police Station- Ashok Paper Mill, Block- Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Region, Darbhanga.

4. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga.

5. Block Development Officer, Hayaghat, Darbhanga.

6. Pradeep Kumar son of Ramnath Jha. resident of Village- Ghanshyampur, Police Station- Ghanshyampur and District- Darbhanga. Presently posted as Indira Awas Sahayak, Hayaghat Block, Darbhanga.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No-2, Advocate Mr. Avinash Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar-AAG-4 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 17-08-2017 Grievance of the petitioners, who are residents of the village in question, are with regard to grant of benefit of Indira Awas Yojna to persons who are not entitled to the privilege and who do not fall in the category of persons who are entitled for allotment of house under the scheme.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10721 of 2017 dt.17-08-2017 2/2 On petitioners' own showing, it is seen that the petitioner have made a complaint before Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 and, that being so, we are not inclined to make indulgence into the matter. Instead, we direct Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to look into the grievance of the petitioners and proceed to take action as permissible under law.

With the aforesaid, this application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) K.C.jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 21.8.2017 Transmission Date N/A