Bijay Prasad v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14715 of 2017 ====================================================== Bijay Prasad, Son of Sri Lutan Mahto, resident of Village - Sinduara, P.S. - Pakaribarawan, District - Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Rural Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. Bihar Rural Road Development Agency Govt. of Bihar Patna through its Chairman.
5. The District Magistrate, Nawada.
6. The Executive Engineer Rural Work Development Division, Nawada.
7. The Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Development Sub-Division, Nawada.
8. The Junior Engineer, Rural Works Development Anchal Pakribarawan, District - Nawada.
9. M/S Bijay Construction Private Limited Nawada through its Proprietor Sri Naresh Yadav Son of not known resident of Mohalla - Ram Nagar, P.S. Nawada Town, District - Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bharat Lal, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Anjani Kumar-AAG-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 28-06-2018 Keeping in view the averments made by the respondents no.2, 3, 4, 6,7 & 8 from para 5 on-wards indicating that the construction in the area, as is indicated, is not being made and the construction is only as per the sanctioned plan, now we are not inclined to make any indulgence into the matter and interfere in this Public Interest Litigation. In case, the petitioner has any grievance still subsisting with regard to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14715 of 2017(3) dt.28-06-2018 2/2 construction in question, he may take up the matter with the respondent no.4 and it would be for the respondent no.4 to consider the grievance of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Sunil/- U