← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/2108/2019dismissed

Barun Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-04-22Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2108 of 2019 ====================================================== Barun Kumar Sharma, S/o Dev Kant Sharma R/o ward No 5 Harpur Diloth , Police Station Samastipur District Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar Through The principal Secretary, Industry Department Govt Of Bihar Patna.

2.

Managing Director BIADA, Patna.

3.

The Director BIADA, Darbhanga.

4.

The Executive Director BIADA, Samastipur.

5.

The General Manager, District industry Centre, Samastipur. 6.

The Officer, Bihar Industry Centre Samastipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Prabhat, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.SC 21 Counsel for BIADA : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Niraj Kumar, Adv.

Mr.Girish Nandan Abhishek, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 22-04-2019 The prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ application cannot be granted by a writ Court. Petitioner is looking for a direction to the 'BIADA' to demolish a part of the boundary wall from the northern side of the District Industry Unit. It is the case of the petitioner that the District Industry Unit, had constructed the boundary wall in front of the industry unit of the petitioner due to which the road of the aforesaid unit has been closed. It further appears from the submission made in the writ application itself that the boundary wall was constructed some time in the year 2014-15.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2108 of 2019(2) dt.22-04-2019 2/2 The stand of 'BIADA' as disclosed in the counter affidavit would show that the 'BIADA' is not willing to demolish the boundary wall for passages to the petitioner due to security reason. In this regard certain communications have also been brought on record as Annexure 'R-2/B' and Annexure 'R2/C'. Some other reasons have also been stated in the counter affidavit.

Taking note of the aforesaid controversies, this Court finds that the writ application is not an appropriate remedy. It is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) R.R.Ojha/- U