Santosh Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14441 of 2024 ====================================================== Santosh Mishra, S/o- Late Maheshwar Mishra, Resident of Village and P.O.- Bangaon, P.S.- Bangaon, District- Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar at Patna. 2.

The Commissioner, Koshi Division, at Saharsa. 3.

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Saharsa. 4.

The Circle Officer, Kahra, District- Saharsa. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Shahid Siddiqui, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-09-2024 Heard Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Shahid Siddiqui, learned Advocate for the State.

2. The grievance of the petitioner of only confined to the expeditious disposal of Arbitration Case No. 64 of 2022 which is pending before the learned Divisional Commissionercum-Arbitrator, Koshi Division, Saharsa for over a period of two years and more.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that despite the fact that the matter has been referred before the Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator and the same was pending therein, the NHAI has demolished the construction over

Patna High Court CWJC No.14441 of 2024(2) dt.23-09-2024 2/2 the land in question, but till date the arbitration case has not come to its logical conclusion.

4. Learned Advocate for the State submits that since the matter is pending before the learned Arbitrator who shall take up the matter and dispose off the same in accordance with law.

5. This court is not oblivious of its power while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to arbitration matter pending before the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner and thus no writ of mandamus is being issued but considering the nature of grievance in the ends of justice, it is expected that the respondent no. 2 shall take up the Arbitration Case No. 64 of 2022 and dispose of the same expeditiously, as the matter is pending for the last two years.

6. With this expectation and the observation aforenoted, the writ petition stands disposed off. (Harish Kumar, J) supratim/- U