Sitaram Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16644 of 2017 ====================================================== Sitaram Sah, Son of Late Ram Lakhan Sah, Resident of Village- Tikauli, P.S.- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.
3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sitamarhi.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.
5. The Block Development Officer, Block- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
6. The Programme Officer, (P.O.), Block- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. AJAY -GA 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 09-02-2018 Inter alia contending that in implementation of the Pradhanmantri Awas Yojana to the beneficiaries of the Gram Panchay, Tikauli in the District of Sitamarhi, various irregularities have been committed and on complaint made, the Deputy Development Commissioner, vide Annexure-2 series, has directed the Block Development Officer, respondent no.5, to take action and in spite of the communication made way back in August, 2017, nothing has been done, this petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in public interest. Taking note of the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, for the present, without entering into the controversy on merit and
Patna High Court CWJC No.16644 of 2017(2) dt.09-02-2018 2/2 without making any comment on the allegations made, interest of justice would be met, in case, respondent No.3 is directed to issue instructions/ order to respondent no.5 and ensure that process of enquiry into the complaint is concluded in accordance to law preferably, within a period of six months. Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the allegations and the action should be taken after following due process of law and hearing aggrieved person. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Sunil/- U