Md. Ilyas v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1291 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10963 of 2004 ======================================================
1. Md. Ilyas Son Of Late Abdul Hakim, Resident Of Mohalla- Churipatty, P.O. And P.S. Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India Through Secretary, Mr. U.S. Raghwan, Ministry Of Posts And Telegraph, New Delhi
2. Brigadier G Bhuan, The Chief Post Master General, Bihar, G.P.O., Patna
3. V.C. Ray, Post Master General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur
4. J.K. Rajque, Superintendent Of Post Officer, Purnea Division, Purnea
5. Anil Kumar, Post Master Katihar Head Post Officer.
6. Saiyad Alam, Sub-Post Master, Kishanganj Bazar Post Officer, Kishanganj .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addll. Solicitor General Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, C.G.C.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India.
It appears that pursuant to the order passed by the writ Court, the authorities have taken up the matter and made the fixation of rent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the fixation by the postal authorities are grossly undermining the true rental value of the building which was leased out to the postal department, and, therefore, warrants interference under the
Patna High Court MJC No.1291 of 2014 (13) dt.21-06-2018 2/2 contempt jurisdiction. It is further submitted that though feed back was called for by the adjacent lease holder like the Indian Bank and Canara Bank but the postal authorities did not take notice of the same and arbitrarily fixed a very low rent of the premises belonging to the petitioner.
Be that as it may, since the application is only for fixation, this Court does not find any gross deliberate violation of the order passed by the writ Court.
The contempt application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and also seek appropriate legal recourse in accordance with law. (Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U