Binod Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18854 of 2016 ====================================================== 1.
Binod Kumar and Ors Son of Late Surendra Prasad Sinha, Resident of C/o Devendra Prasad Singh, under Bridge, Andhari Pul, Near Kaushalya Apartment, Yarpur Khagaul Road, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna. 2.
Vikash Kumar, Son of Late Lal Bihari Rai, Resident of Village- Nandgaon, P.S.- L.B.S. Nagar, District- Patna.
3.
Vinay Kumar Singh, Son of Hirdya Narayan Singh, Resident of Near Mantu Singh House, Yarpur Azad Public School, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.
The Competent Authority, Department of Building Construction, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3.
The Executive Engineer, Patliputra Bhawan, Pramandal, Department of Building Construction, Govt. of ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ravindra Kumar Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Raj Ballabh Pd. Yadav- AAG-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 11-09-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):
(i) for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Directing/ Commanding the concerned Respondents to provide adequate place to run their Shops doing Photostat business;
(ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the concerned Respondents to provide a place either in the newly
Patna High Court CWJC No.18854 of 2016(5) dt.11-09-2025 2/3 constructed building earmarked for Advocate General, Bihar, Patna situated in the Western side of the main gate of Hon'ble Patna High Court or in alternative any suitable place for running the photo copying Machine which is the only source of livelihood of these Petitioners;
(iii) any other writ/writs be issued, Direction/Directions be given, Order/Orders be passed for redressal of the grievances of the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of this case.
3. The petitioners claim to be earlier doing their business near Advocate General Office and want settlement of shops that has been constructed by the respondents.
4. The stand of the respondents is/are that they were encroachers, stand removed.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they shall be approaching the Competent Authority of the Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna for the allotment.
6. If there is any such shop that has been constructed by the Building Construction Department behind the Advocate General Office and if the same is vacant, the natural recourse is to allot the same in accordance with law, if any such investment
Patna High Court CWJC No.18854 of 2016(5) dt.11-09-2025 3/3 has been made, the Government has to realize the amount also.
7. The aforesaid facts have been observed only on the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel was unable to inform whether the shop actually exists on the ground or not.
8. The writ petition as also the pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of with aforesaid observation. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U