Md. Inamul Haque And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22028 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Md. Inamul Haque Son Of Late Hanif Resident Of Village - West Azimganj, Police Station - Haveli Kharagpur, District - Munger

2. Shyam Bihari Tiwrewal Son Of Late Shankar Lal Tiwriwal Resident Of Mohalla - Khas Bazar, District - Munger

3. Md. Shahabuddin Son Of Late Md. Ahsan Ali Resident Of Village - Mushari, Police Station - Haveli Kharagpur, District - Munger .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through The Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna

2. The Inspector General, Registration, Bihar, Patna, Old Secretariat, P.S. - Patna

3. The Principal Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Registration, Excise And Wine Prohibition Department, Bihar, Patna

4. The District Registrar - Cum - District Magistrate, Munger

5. The Deputy Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Registration, Excise And Wine Prohibition Department, Bihar, Patna

6. The District Sub - Registrar, Munger.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kailash Nath Diwakar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Hari Shankar Rai Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 28-06-2016 Heard.

The writ application questions the pregnability of the government notification dated 02.07.20 granting extension of the created post for the duly constituted Sub Registry Office Tarapur Sub-Division. Creation of such offices and post is the purely administrative exercise of the Government taken in the larger public interest. A Public Interest Litigation was filed by the petitioners which was, on request, was disposed of permitting

Patna High Court CWJC No.22028 of 2013 (2) dt.28-06-2016 2/2 them to approach the Chief Secretary ventilating the grievance. The Chief Secretary, passed an order on 23.7.2013 (Annexure-2) setting out adequate reasons for setting up the office of sub Registry at the place in question.

In the counter affidavit, the respondents have disclosed the power of the authority to do so and also the justification for doing so in the interest of the people at large. There is no rejoinder to the counter affidavit. On perusal of the pleadings and after hearing the State counsel, I am satisfied that the writ application does not call for any interference by invocation of writ jurisdiction of the Court. The writ application is dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U