Sunil Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20617 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Sunil Kumar Chaudhary son of Late Kailu Chaudhary resident of village - Malhani, P.O. Sukhpur, P.S. + District - Supaul .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa

4. The District Magistrate, Supaul

5. The Additional Collector ( Disaster Management ), Supaul

6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul

7. The Block Development Officer, Supaul .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, A.C. to G.P.26 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-11-2015 Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and A.C. to G.P.26 for State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. Petitioner, claiming himself to be a social activist, has filed the present writ application for a direction commanding the respondents to lodge F.I.R. against the erring persons who were involved in illegal acts in execution of diverse government schemes. A Public Interest Litigation was earlier filed by the petitioner for the similar relief which was disposed of on 18.07.2013 (Annexure-A to the Counter Affidavit) by the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

From the pleadings of the Public Interest

Patna High Court CWJC No.20617 of 2014 dt.27-11-2015 2/2 Litigation, it is apparent that the Lokayukta is already in seisin of the matter. We are not persuaded to hold a parallel proceeding.

The Public Interest Litigation stands disposed"

Obviously, none of the legal or statutory right of the petitioner has been violated. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot approach this Court for a writ of mandamus. That apart, this Court is not an executing Court of the order or the communication which have been issued by the District Administration.

The application appears to be misconceived. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U