Syed Haseebur Rub v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18204 of 2015 ====================================================== Syed Haseebur Rub son of Late Syed Abdul Ali, resident of villageRampur Kansara, presently residing at G.B. Road, P.S.- Kotwali, DistrictGaya .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad

3. The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad

4. Officer-in-Charge, Makhdumpur Police Station, Jehanabad

5. Circle Officer, Makhdumpur, Dist.- Jehanabad .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No-2, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, AC to G.P 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-09-2016 Heard the parties.

In view of the nature of grievances/claims raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that instead of keeping the matter pending asking the respondents to file their counter-affidavit, the interest of justice shall be sub-served if the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent District Collector, Jehanabad with all supporting documents raising all the pleas, which have been raised in the present writ petition. It is ordered accordingly.

If such a fresh comprehensive representation is filed on behalf of the petitioner within a period of one month from today with a certified copy of the present order, then the respondent District Collector, Jehanabad either himself or any other competent authority of the respondent State, as per his

Patna High Court CWJC No.18204 of 2015 (2) dt.22-09-2016 2/2 endorsement, shall be obliged to consider and decide the claims of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at an early date preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner.

If on consideration of the materials the competent authority comes to a conclusion that claims raised on behalf of the petitioner are admissible to him, then consequential order shall also be issued for grant of such admissible claims without any unnecessary further delay.

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claims raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition and it is left to be decided by the competent authority strictly in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/- U