Md. Safdar Imam v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.984 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Md. Safdar Imam, Son Of Late Nurual Hoda, Secretary, Janjagran Trust, Mohammadpur, Teghra, District- Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Labour Welfare Sangathan, Labour And Employment Ministry, Govt. Of India

2. The Welfare Commissioner, Karma, Jhumari Telaiya, District- Kodarma (Jharkhand), Labour Welfare Sangathan, Labour And Employment Ministry, Govt. Of India

3. The State Of Bihar, Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

4. The District Magistrate, Begusarai

5. The Medical Officer, Beedi Worker's Welfare Organization, Static Cum Mobile Hospital, Ministry Of Labour, Govt. Of India, Bachhwara, Begusarai .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 22-07-2016 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the Counsel for the private respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the State. Counter affidavits have been filed. There is no rejoinder thereto on behalf of the petitioner.

On going through the pleadings, it appears, the petitioner is raising a grievance on behalf of the others. In that sense, it appears a public interest litigation. It is stated that there are several needy homeless persons who are Beedi Workers/labourers belonging to most Backward Class/BPL category but even after having applied for Awas (residence) under the Revised Integrated Housing Scheme of Beedi Workers of the Government of India,

Patna High Court CWJC No.984 of 2014 (3) dt.22-07-2016 2/2 they have not been provided the house. The respondents have clarified that actually, in case of allotment under the Scheme, a subsidy is provided and not the house. Reasons for not considering the case of others whose applications were incomplete have also been stated.

In my view, aggrieved person should approach the concerned authority ventilating the grievance of non-grant of subsidy for Awas under the Scheme implemented by the respondent Union of India for Beedi workers. The present writ application in the form it has been presented would not be maintainable.

Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U