Somar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.695 of 2016 ====================================================== Somar Mahto Son of Durga Mahto, Resident of Village - Harewa, P.O. - Konang, P.S. - Halsi, District - Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary,Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.

3.

The District Programme Officer Lakhisarai.

4.

The Block Development Officer, Halsi, Lakhisarai. 5.

The Child Development Project Officer, Halsi, Lakhisarai. 6.

The Mukhiya Village Panchayat Mohiuddinagar, Halsi, District - Lakhisarai. 7.

The Panchayat Secretary, Village Panchayat Mohiuddinagar, Halsi, District - Lakhisarai.

8.

Gaurav Kumar, Son of Brij Nandan Prasad.

9.

Sanjay Kumar, Son of Laxmin Narayan.

Both Resident of Village - Harewa, P.O. - Konang, P.S. - Halsi, District - Lakhisarai.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rabi Bhushan, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Vivek Anand Amritesh, AC to SC 28.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 30-04-2019 Petitioner in this case is seeking a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to construct Anganbari Building on the land measuring 3 decimals appertaining to Khata No.101, Khesra No.272 situated in village-Harewa within Halsi Block in the District of Lakhisarai. A further direction has been sought calling upon the respondents to refrain from constructing the Anganbari Centre at any other place. It is also his grievance that the Mukhia and the

Patna High Court CWJC No.695 of 2016(3) dt.30-04-2019 2/2 Contractors along with others are acting in collusion with each other and they were constructing building on a land other than the land provided by the State Government which is unfit and unsuitable for the beneficiaries having no means of communication.

Learned counsel for the State is present and submits that these are the administrative issues which are to be looked into by the competent authorities, the remedy of the petitioner does not lie by filing a writ application before this Court. In the opinion of this Court, the issues raised by the petitioner are to be looked into by the administrative bodies who are responsible to take a decision in the matter of construction of Anganbari Centres. This Court finds no reason to interfere with such issues which are purely within the domain of administrative bodies. The petitioner, if so advised, may seek his remedies before the competent authority.

This writ application has no merit, it is dismissed. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) R.R.Ojha/- U