Baleshwar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5901 of 2016 =========================================================== Baleshwar Prasad Son of Late Dhanu Mahto resident of village - Tankupa, P.O. - Tankupa, P.S. Wazirganj District - Gaya. At present Adhyaksh Prakhand cum Circle Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, Tankupa, Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Commissioner, Gaya Division, Gaya.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya, District - Gaya.
4. The Additional Collector, Gaya, District - Gaya.
5. The Circle Officer, Tankopa, District - Gaya. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nadeem Seraj, GP 5 with Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AC to GP 5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH) Date: 08-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner, being the resident of village Tankupa, P.S. Wazirganj in the district of Gaya, claims to be the Adhyaksha of Prakhand-cum-Circle Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, Tankupa. He has filed the present petition by way of Public Interest Litigation, to direct the respondents not to shift the existing Block, Circle and other offices to a new location. The ground taken is that the new place, being close to a mountain range, is unsafe for public and other officials due to Naxal menace.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5901 of 2016 dt.08-11-2016 2/2 We are of the considered opinion, that such issue is best left to the State for taking an appropriate decision and the Court would, thus, not interfere in the matter. Moreover, the government offices being shifted to a new location at one place is sufficient indication that the officers would be performing their official duties and functions from the new location, which presupposes that security and other issues with regard to suitability of the location, have sufficiently been addressed.
In view of the aforesaid, no direction is required to be issued with regard to the prayer made in the writ petition, which, accordingly, stands dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta, ACJ) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- U