Rakesh Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2199 of 2017 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumari Daughter of Chandrahud Sharma Resident of Shop No. 13, Market No. 02 , Rajbanshi Nagar, P . O. and P.S.- Shashtri Nagar, DistrictPatna-800023. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar , through the District Magistrate, Patna.

2. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Law and Order, Patna.

4. Sonu Kumar, S/o Prahlad Rajak, Shop No. 21, Market No. 02 Rajbanshi Nagar, P.O. - Shastri Nagar, District- Patna-800023. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Partha Sarthi- Ga4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-08-2017 Heard Mr.Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Purva Kumar, learned A.C. to G.A.4. The present Writ application has been filed for vacating the shop No.21 of Market No.2 situated in Rajbanshi Nagar Market Complex which has been allotted to the petitioner by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar - cum- Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, vide Memo No.1603/c, Patna dated 19.12.1987.

It is submitted by learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1, District magistrate, Patna that in pursuance to the order dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.2199 of 2017 (2) dt.28-08-2017 2/2 28.12.2015, passed by the House Controller- cum-S.D.O., Patna Sadar in Eviction Suit No.92/14, the private respondent no.4 has been directed to get the shop in question vacated and accordingly, for implementation of the said order, the S.D.O., Patna Sadar vide Letter No.1138 dated 23.05.2017 has requested the Incharge District Control Room, Patna for deputation of a Magistrate and adequate Police force for eviction of private respondent , Sonu Kumar from the shop in question.

In view of the present stand of the respondent no.4 made in paragraph 4 to 6 of the counter affidavit the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for disposal of the writ application. Hence, this Court is not issuing notice to private respondent no.4.

Accordingly, the Writ application is disposed of without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) AnilKrSinha/- U