Sunil Kumar Bharti v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6817 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Sunil Kumar Bharti Son Of Sri Hari Nandan Ram Resident Of Village - Khatolwa, P.S. Kalyanpur, District - East Champaran At Motihari .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna

2. The Chief Engineer, Bihar State Road Nirman Construction Company, Patna

3. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Pool Nirman Company, Muzaffarpur

4. The District Magistrate, Motihari

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer

6. The Block Development Officer, Block Kalyanpur, Motihari

7. The Circle Officer, Kalyanpur, Motihari .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Utsav Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-11 For the Respondents nos. 2 and 3 : Mr. Vikash Kumar. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 25-01-2016 Heard both the sides.

The petitioner claims to be the resident of a village, which is situated near River Khatolwa.

The petitioner has filed this application seeking a direction upon the respondent- Bihar Rajya Pool Nirman Nigam Limited to construct the bridge in the village of Khatolwa on the river of Khokhana as the selection of place for construction of bridge was made under Chief Minister Setu Nirman Yojna.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of

Patna High Court CWJC No.6817 of 2013 (3) dt.25-01-2016 2/2 respondent nos. 2 and 3 it has been stated that the site on which the construction of bridge has to be constructed was approved by the district administration.

Where the bridge shall be constructed, in my view, is a purely administrative decision of the State- respondent to benefit the people of the area. Nothing has been stated about any serious flaw in the selection causing enormous difficulty to the petitioner, who has filed this application on behalf of the residents of the village.

Considering the above as also the fact that the application for the said relief has been filed not as a public interest litigation, I am not inclined to grant the same. This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) singh/- U