Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20628 of 2021 ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Son of Vijay Singh, Resident of Sabalpur, Post Office and Police Station-Rajgir, District-Nalanda (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Tourism and Development, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, A Public Sector Undertaking owned and controlled by the State of Bihar through its Managing Director, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna. 3.

The Managing Director, the Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Patna, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna.

4.

The General Manager, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar.

5.

The Additional Managing Director, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar. 6.

The Manager Hotel and Lease, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar. 7.

Incharge Rope Way, Rajgir, District-Nalanda.

8.

Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Incharge Rope Way, Rajgir, District-Nalanda. 9.

The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 10.

The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 11.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Subdivision-Rajgir, Nalanda. 12.

The Station House Officer, Rajgir Police Station. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satish Chandra Mishra, Advocate Mr. Uma Kant Mishra, Advocate Md. Nurul Hoda, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar (GA 9) Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER

2/5 (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice/ Hon'ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their residential offices/residences. Also, the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.) 10-02-2022 Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) : - "(i) For issuance an appropriate writ/writs directing the concerned Respondents to produce the order of the Managing Director, the Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Patna i.e. Respondent No.3 rejecting the Representation dated 09.10.2021 (Annexure-7) of the petitioner submitted in pursuance of Order dated 05.10.2021 (Annexure-6) passed by this Hon'ble Court in Petitioner's CW.J.C. No. 16934 of 2021 and on such production the same be quashed as well as for quashing the impugned follow up order/communication dated 22.10.2021 (Annexure-1) of Respondent No.6 i.e.

Manager Hotel Land Lease, Bihar State Tourism and Development Corporation whereby and where under the Petitioner has been directed to vacate the space of his Toys Shop near to the Sky Ropeway and to deposit the outstanding dues without hearing or considering the case of the petitioner and in utter discrimination, Pandemic situation and the immense loss of the Petitioner and also that many other Shops, Hotels and other establishments under the corporation which are running since very long time by extending, renewing their lease and even without clearance of their dues, however, the petitioner has deposited the entire dues even by facing loss in his business and by taking heavy loans due to closure of his toys shop for more than one and half years and as such the petitioner may be held to be entitled for the relief for continuing his shop with his poor workers on bearable and/or amicable terms for adequate period.

3/5 (ii) For direction up on the concerned Respondents to restore and to put the Toys' Shop of the Petitioner at its place near to the Sky Ropeway which has been washed out and has been kept with the concerned Respondents in secret manner at the instance of Mr. Gauav Kumar, Incharge Sky Ropeway, Rajgir, District-Nalanda I.e.

Respondent No. 7/8 in absence of the petitioner or his representative in a most illegal manner causing him heavy loss as this petitioner is a very poor person and as a result of which this petitioner has come on the road and has no any money to survive with his family.

(iii) After the restoration of the shop of the Petitioner the concerned respondents be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner pathetic financial conditions and heavy loss occurred due to closure and removal of his shop/establishment due to the COVID Pandemic as the shop of the Petitioner has remained closed locked down on the decision of State Government of Bihar and the District Magistrate, Nalanda since 23.03.2020 for more than one and half years out of three years of the lease agreement and as such the shop of the Petitioner may be allowed to continue under any viable condition which may be renewal of the lease or on any amicable and bearable terms as there is no any outstanding dues of the Corporation on the petitioner.

(iv) Any other relief/reliefs may also be granted in favour of the Petitioner for which he is found entitled for in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Learned counsel for the respondents, refutes the statement made on behalf of petitioner that no order stands passed on the petitioner's representation

4/5 pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 05.10.2021, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16934 of 2021, titled as Santosh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Annexure-6, page-33).

Also Ms. Jaipuriyar states that copy of the order stood supplied to the petitioner. As such, the submission made is factually incorrect.

Be that as it may, Ms. Jaipuriyar states that copy of the order shall be communicated to the petitioner in the next two working days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall approach Respondent No. 3, namely The Managing Director, The Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Patna, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna, for collecting the order.

Also, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law.

We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch.

5/5 Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) K.C.Jha/chn U