Parvati Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3508 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15104 of 2013 ====================================================== Parvati Devi Wife of Late Ram Pravesh Resident Of Village + P.O.- Bela, P.S.- Naubatpur, District- Patna ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Arun Kumar Singh,The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

3. Ram Pukar Ranjan,the Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

4. Rameshwar Chaudhary,the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri On Sone (Rohtas) Govt. of Bihar Patna, At present Ram Pukar Ranjan, the Chief Engineer, Central Rupankan & Quality Central Water Resources Department, Patna

5. Rajdeo Lal Das The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle Department, Dehri On Sone (Rohtas)

6. Animesh Kumar Paraser,the District Magistrate, Rohtas At Sasaram

7. Sheikh Shaob Alam,the Executive Engineer, Sone Nahar Modernisation Division, Piro (Bhojpur) ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Radha Krishna Singh, Adv.

For the Respondents :

Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG IV ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-04-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State.

This Court has disposed off C.W.J.C. No. 15104 of 2013 vide order, dated 29.03.2016, whereby and whereunder this Court had directed to examine the case of the petitioner and pass reasoned order within four months.

In pursuance of the direction, the Chief Engineer has passed the order, dated 14.11.2016, and rejected the claim of the petitioner wherein the reasons have been made. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court MJC No.3508 of 2016(3) dt.04-04-2018 2/2 affidavit, which has been filed by the State is completely false and fabricated, which dehorse to the facts on record and, further, submits that the order, dated 14.11.2016, does not disclose that the Chief Engineer has also examined the order passed in L.P.A. No. 1365 of 2014. The order passed by the Chief Engineer is completely arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law and not in terms of paragraph 7 of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15104 of 2013.

Be that as it may, the order, dated 14.11.2016, has assigned three reasons, on that ground, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and in the contempt proceeding this Court cannot look to the merit of the order.

If the petitioner feels aggrieved, he may challenge the same in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. This application is dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Shamshad/- U