Ram Naumi Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13630 of 2022 ====================================================== Ram Naumi Ray Son of Yodhan Ray Resident of Village- Baranti, Uttri Tola, P.O.- Bidupur (R.S.), P.S.- Raja Pakar, District- Vaishali at Hajipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 4.

The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, District- Vaishali at Hajipur. 5.

The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur, District- Vaishali at Hajipur.

6.

The Block Development Officer, Hajipur, District- Vaishali at Hajipur. 7.

The Surpunch, Gram Kachahari, Andharwara, Block- Hajipur, DistrictVaishali at Hajipur. 8.

The Secretary, Gram Kachahari, Andharwara, Block- Hajipur, DistrictVaishali at Hajipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Akash Raj, AC to GA-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 08-05-2023 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "1(I). For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent authorities particularly the Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 to make available the deposition of witnesses as well as the orders mentioned in the order-sheet passed by the Surpunch of Gram Kachahari, Andharwara (Respondent no.7) in Case Reg. No. 07 of 2020

Patna High Court CWJC No.13630 of 2022(2) dt.08-05-2023 2/2 relying upon the said deposition of the witnesses as well as the orders, the Respondent no.7 dropped the proceeding of Case No.07 of 2020 on the ground that even after demand of such documents made by the petitioner either through the proper requisition or under Right to Information Act, the same was not supplied by the Respondent nos. 7 and 8.

(II). For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the Respondent authorities to take suitable action against the Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for nonsupply of the aforesaid deposition of the witnesses as well as the orders mentioned in the order-sheet of Case No. 7 of 2020."

After some arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U