Sannu Kumari @ Sannu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14873 of 2024 ====================================================== Sannu Kumari @ Sannu Kumar, wife of Ramjee Malakar, Resident of Village/Mohalla-Ganga Nagar Colony, Police Station-Barari, DistrictBhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Executive Director (Administration) BIADA Larger Industries Campus, Barari, Bhagalpur BIADA.

4.

The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bhagalpur, Range-Bhagalpur.

5.

The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division (West), Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dileep Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, AC to GA 9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 01-10-2024 One Sannu Kumari is the petition of the instant writ petition. The said Sannu Kumari is the wife of Ramjee Malakar, who is an employee of the Public Health Engineering Department (hereinafter described as 'PHED'), Government of Bihar, Patna. He was allotted a quarter at Barari, Bhagalpur. It is ascertained during the argument that the said premise was taken over by the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA). The BIADA requested Ramjee Malakar, being an employee of PHED, to vacate his quarter, but he did not do so. On the contrary, the said quarter was locked by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.14873 of 2024(2) dt.01-10-2024 2/3 representative of BIADA under lock and key.

2. At the outset, I find that the instant writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is not an employee of the PHED. She is the wife of the employee of PHED; therefore, the respondents rightly did not take any action on the representation filed by the petitioner.

3. It is contended by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that there are certain household goods inside the said quarter.

4. Though I find that the instant writ petition is not maintainable as the wife of the employee has come forward seeking relief against respondents, while dismissing the instant writ petition, this Court gives liberty to the concerned employee to file a representation before the concerned authority, and after receiving such representation, the respondent authority will open the padlock of the quarter in question only for a few hours to enable the said employee to take away his household articles.

5. It is specifically directed that this Court does not grant any order regarding possession of the flat in question by the concerned employee or the petitioner. After removal of household articles, respondent authority shall again put padlock

Patna High Court CWJC No.14873 of 2024(2) dt.01-10-2024 3/3 on the entrance door of the said quarter.

6. With the above order, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J) Suraj Dubey/- U