Bijendra Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10490 of 2024 ====================================================== Bijendra Sharma Son of Kailash Sharma, Resident of Village- Jamunia, P.S.- Parbatta(Naugachia), District- Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 3.

The District Magistrate- cum -District Collector, Bhagalpur, Bihar. 4.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar. 5.

The Circle Officer, Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 18-07-2024 Quite omnibus prayers are made in the writ petition seeking an independent inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) or Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.), regarding implementation of the several schemes of both the Government of Bihar and the Union of India.

2. The petitioner has made broad allegations, totally unsubstantiated and without reference to any particular scheme or the manner in which it has been improperly implemented. The petitioner also has claims of complaints raised by farmers and daily-wage labourers about the activities in the Circle Office

Patna High Court CWJC No.10490 of 2024 dt.18-07-2024 2/2 Naugachiya and Kharik; without any reference to the specific complaint. Petitioner also speaks of mutation having been effected illegally; which has to be challenged by persons who claim title and possession over such properties. The complaints and representation made by the petitioner are not substantiated or based on any actual facts.

3. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the writ petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation. In that circumstance, learned counsel for the petitioner sought withdrawal of the writ petition.

4. We dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Partha Sarthy, J) P.K.P./- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 20.07.2024 Transmission Date