Shailesh Kumar Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15819 of 2016 ===========================================================

1. Shailesh Kumar Singh S/o Raghav Singh R/o vill. Dumri Bujurg, P.S. Nayagaon, Distt. Saran

2. Munna Tiwari S/o Sri Hari Narayan Tiwari R/o vill. + P.O. Aami Chouhani Pati, P.S. Dighwara, Distt. Saran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Urban Development Department, Bihar, Patna

2. The Commissioner Cum Chairman Maa Ambika Maharani Mandir Nayas Samiti, Aami, Saran at Chapra

3. The Collector, Saran at Chapra

4. The Sub Divisional officer, Sonepur, Saran

5. The Circle officer, Dighwara, Saran

6. The Executive Engineer, District Urban Development Authority, Saran, Chapra .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Shankar Das For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, AC to AAG-7 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-03-2017 Heard learned counws4el for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In the present writ petition, petitioner has raised a grievance that direction should be given to the respondent for beautification of work of Maa Ambika Maharani, Mandir as well as Guest House in the interest of public under the Tourists Scheme of Saran District.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was published for the appointment of contractor

Patna High Court CWJC No.15819 of 2016 dt.07-03-2017 for the beautification work of the said Mandir and for the construction of Guest House, he has entered into an agreement. Thereafter work has not been initiated though the Commissioner has directed for initiation of the work expeditiously. This Court refrains to interfere in the administrative matter, if already there is work order then it is supposed the petitioner would carry out the work in its term. It is the business of the administration to see the work should be carried out. This Court is not giving any direction or issuing mandamus. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 9.3.2017 Transmission Date NA