Mohamad Abbas, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3640 of 2021 ====================================================== Mohamad Abbas, son of Md. Yusuf, resident of Village- Bara Parewa, P.O. and P.S.- Raxau1, District-East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Level Telecom Committee, through the Collector, District-East Champaran, Motihari.

3.

The Dishnet Wireless Limited, Represented by its Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Amit Sinha son of Late J.N. Sinha, Circle Office, at Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, 415, 4th Floor, Frazer Road, Patna-1. 4.

The Director, G.T.L. Infrastructure Limited, Branch Office, D/S 20, Markandey Complex 3rd Floor, Gayatri Mandir Road, Kankarbagh, Patna-20. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Devi Das Srivastava, Advocate For R. No. 4 :

Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Md. Farooq, Advocate For the State :

Mr. AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-07-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2.

It appears that the present writ petition has been filed for directing upon the private respondent no. 4 to pay the rent against installation of tower over the land of the petitioner bearing khata no. 8, khesra no. 724, area 2000 sq. feet situated at village Bara Parewa, Post Office and Police Station Raxaul, Distt. East Champaran for cellular mobile service and also directing upon the private respondent no. 4 to remove the entire

Patna High Court CWJC No.3640 of 2021(3) dt.22-07-2024 2/2 instruments installed over the land of the petitioner. In fact, the respondent no. 4 has utilized the land of the petitioner. 3.

Learned counsel for the private respondent no. 4 has appeared and submits that for the relief as sought in the present writ petition, the petitioner may approach before the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. 4.

It appears that no writ can be issued against the private person.

5.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U