Nithuri Prasad v. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Patna And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1053 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3834 of 2005 ====================================================== Nithuri Prasad Son Of Late Hardeo Resident Of Mohalla/Village - Bakar, P.S. Gagaha, P.O. Balkar, District - Gorakhpur (U.P.) .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
2. Mr. Kuldeep Narayan, Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna
3. Mr. S.K. Ray, the Chief Account Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna .... .... Opposite parties.
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramendra Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anshul Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 29-04-2015 Heard.
The application raises a grievance about non compliance of the order dated 16.11.2011 passed in CWJC No. 3834 of 2005. Noticing the fact that the writ application was not supported by all relevant documents and that no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents, the same was disposed of in the following manner:- "Let the petitioner file a detail representation setting out his grievance in the light of order dated 11.8.2004 (Annexure-4) within four weeks along with a copy of the present order before the
Patna High Court MJC No.1053 of 2014 (3) dt.29-04-2015 2 / 3 Municipal Commissioner whereafter the said respondent shall consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned order preferably within six weeks of its filing. Needless to observe that if the authority finds that the case of the petitioner stands on the similar/identical footing as that of the beneficiary of order dated 11.8.2004(Annexure-4), obviously he would also be entitled to the same benefit."
A show cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 enclosing therewith a reasoned order which the Municipal Commissioner passed on 15.04.2015.
Counsel for the petitioner prays time to file reply to the show cause.
This court does not feel the necessity of granting time for filing reply to the show cause. I have perused the order dated 16.11.2011 as well as the reasoned order passed by the Municipal Commissioner annexed with the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party no.2. In my view, the order of this Court has been complied with by the opposite party. The present application does not merit further persuasion. It is dismissed.
If the petitioner has any grievance thereagainst, he
Patna High Court MJC No.1053 of 2014 (3) dt.29-04-2015 3 / 3 will be at liberty to assail the same before the appropriate authority/forum in accordance with law.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U