Ragho Singh And ANR v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12482 of 2013 ===========================================================
1. Ragho Singh Son Of Late Ram Swarth Singh Resident Of Village- Morsand, P.S.- Runni Saidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi
2. Amresh Kumar Son Of Sri Vishwanath Singh Resident Of Village- Morsand, P.S.- Runni Saidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry Of Railways, Government of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. The Secretary, Ministry Of Railways, Government of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
3. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur (Bihar)
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, Samastipur, East Central Railway, Samastipur
5. The Chief Administrator, Construction Department, East Central Railway, Patna
6. The Chief Engineer, Construction, East Central Railway, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vaideti Raman Pd. Singh Mr. Ranjan =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-03-2016 Heard counsel for the petitioners.
No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners have objection to construction of floor of culvert no.57 situate sought to Runni Saidpur Railway Station and to construct a fresh floor of the culvert 67 at lower level and to link the same with the water logging area in the nearby village.
From the counter affidavit of respondent no.6, it appears that various options which shall be technically sound and cost effective are being considered by the respondents. It is further stated that the actual execution of the selected scheme for mitigating the hardships of the petitioners another villagers shall be taken up after the monsoon season. No rejoinder thereto has been filed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.12482 of 2013 dt.08-03-2016 2/2 the petitioners.
Considering the above, the writ application stands disposed of. The respondents are expected to take steps as stated in the counter affidavit whereas the petitioners are granted liberty to represent their grievance before the appropriate/competent authority of the respondent if the position does not improve materially.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U