← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/12455/2025disposed

Raushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-18Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri,Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12455 of 2025 ====================================================== Raushan Kumar, aged about 33 years (M), Son of Late Anil Prasad, Resident of Village Dev Gaon, Police Station Khijersarai, District Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Commissioner, Magadh Division Gaya.

3.

The District Magistrate, Gaya.

4.

M/S Sewan Ram Construction Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director Office, Village Tola Belhar, Police Station Belhar, District Banka, PIN Code813202. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate Ms. Shruti Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Advocate General ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 18-09-2025 In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief :

"That this application on behalf of the petitioner is being filed in Public Interest for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities not to cut about 20,000= trees for construction of Electronic Building although there is vacant land measuring an area of about 50 Acres situated adjacent to proposed Building Construction at village Dev Gaon."

Patna High Court CWJC No.12455 of 2025(2) dt.18-09-2025 2/2

2. Prima facie, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that there is a proposal for construction of Electronic Building in a particular place where 20,000 trees are existing and they are likely to be uprooted. In the absence of such material, we have to draw inference that the present public interest litigation is premature. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of as premature, reserving liberty to invoke remedy with reference to cause of action, if so advised. (P. B. Bajanthri, ACJ) (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) GAURAV S./- U