Vishal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11709 of 2025 ====================================================== Vishal Kumar Son of Uma Shankar Sharma Resident of Mohalla-Karan Sarai, Ward No. 23, P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Director, Municipal Administration-Cum-Additional Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.

5.

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Sasaram. 6.

The Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Sasaram. 7.

The Project Officer (Establishment), Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

8.

The Accountant General, Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Saket Tiwary, Adv For the State :

Mr. Prashant Kumar, AC to SC 5 For the AG, Bihar :

Mr. Arun Kr. Arun, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-08-2025 This Court, prima facie, finds that the petitioner has no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on account of having no legal or fundamental right in respect to the claim/grievance raised in the present writ petition.

2. Mr. Saket Tiwary, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that he has been pursuing his grievance since long and in pursuant to letter No. 59 dated 09.01.2025, he was asked to submit material on affidavit in support of his

Patna High Court CWJC No.11709 of 2025(2) dt.04-08-2025 2/2 complaint, pursuant to which the same has been done but the respondent authorities are sitting tight over the matter, hence having no way out he approached this Court.

3. Learned Advocates for the Municipal Corporation, Samastipur as well as the State have submitted that the petitioner has already pursued his remedy before the concerned authorities, who is in seisin of the matter to take appropriate decision.

4. Having considered the prayer of the petitioner, this Court does not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition stands closed.

6. However, it is expected that the authorities, who are in seisin of the matter, shall expedite the proceeding initiated on the complaint submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

(Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- U