Amit Kumar Ranjan And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16240 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Amit Kumar Ranjan, Son of Sri Ajit Sharma, Resident of MohallaRaniganj, Magadh Central School, Tekari, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya.

2. Amit Kumar, Son of Late Bhola Prasad Swarnkar, Resident of MohallaRakabganj, Main Road Tekari, Near Mahabir Sthan, P.S.- Tekari, DistrictGaya. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Secretary, Cabinet Vigilance Department (Economic Offenses), Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Director Urban Local Bodies, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

6. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.

7. The District Magistrate, Gaya.

8. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Tekari.

9. The Tekari Nagar Panchayat, through its Executive Officer, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya.

10. Sindhu Jain, Wife of Sanjay Kumar Jain, Resident of MohallaRakabganj, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya Currently Posted as Chairman, Tekari Nagar Panchayat, Gaya.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore(A.G.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 11-12-2017 Keeping in view the steps already initiated by the respondents, as is evident from Annexure-6 onwards of the supplementary affidavit filed by the State Government on 28th of

Patna High Court CWJC No.16240 of 2016 (10) dt.11-12-2017 2/2 April, 2017, we are satisfied that the competent authority is already seized of the matter, has issued show cause notice to the officer concerned and the enquiry and action into the matter is proceeding.

In view of the above, the competent authority to proceed in the matter and bring it to its logical conclusion expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, we dispose of the matter. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) N.H./- U