Prabhat Kumar Singh v. The Patna Municipal Corporation And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4228 of 2014 ====================================================== Prabhat Kumar Singh, S/o late Brajnandan Pd. Singh, resident of Chakaram, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Budha Colony, Distict- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Patna Municipal Corporation, Dak Bunglow Road, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Patna.

2. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Dak Bunglow Road, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Patna.

3. The Vigilance Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Dak Bunglow Road, Maurya Lok Complex, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Patna.

4. Upendra Kumar, S/o Ram Bhan Rai, resident of Cakaram, Near Kapila Residency, Post- GPO, P.S.- Budha Colony, District- Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Ram Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 20-04-2015 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act by the Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation against the private respondent for making such constructions which, according to the petitioner, are in violation of the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act and the Bye-laws framed thereunder.

The matter was heard on 13.4.2015 when adjournment was sought by Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation to seek instruction in the matter. The matter has thereafter been taken up today when it is

Patna High Court CWJC No.4228 of 2014 (3) dt.20-04-2015 informed by Mr. Pandey that a vigilance case has been instituted giving rise to Vigilance Case No.5B of 2014 and that the Municipal Commissioner is in seisin of the matter. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the fact that the limited grievance of the petitioner regarding initiation of proceedings against the private respondent stands satisfied by the registration of the vigilance case against the private respondent and the Municipal Commissioner is in seisin of the matter, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition which is accordingly disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U