Anitha Alias Anitha P. Venu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24594 of 2019 ====================================================== Anitha alias Anitha P. Venu, Wife of Late P.V. Benugopalan alias Venu Resident of Mohalla- 23, South Mandiri, Behind Hathuwa Pathshala, C/o Yogendra Kumar (S/o Late Bhisham Rai), P.S. Budha Colony, Dist- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Urban Development Department, State Government, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, State Government, Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Municipal Commissioner, Mauryalok, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.

4.

The District Magistrate (D.M.), Patna.

5.

The Chairperson of Patna Town Vending Committee, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Sandesh Roy, Advocate For the PMC :

Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Indeshwari Pd. Mandal, A.C. to G.A.-3.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. It is the petitioner's case that her husband was running a mobile Fast food shop in the premises of Mauryalok Complex under permission granted by the Patna Municipal Corporation. After the demise of his husband, the petitioner claims that she is running the business. Her vending shop has however been removed from the Mauryalok Complex in an antiencroachment right. The petitioner, in such circumstance, is

Patna High Court CWJC No.24594 of 2019 dt.10-12-2019 2/2 seeking a direction to relocate the said vending shop somewhere within Mauryalok Complex.

3. The petitioner has approached the Municipal Corporation, Patna, by making an application on 12.10.2019. In her representation, she has made a request that till vending zones are established nearby and shop is not allotted to her, she should be allowed to run her mobile shop.

4. On the basis of what has been alleged in the writ application, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been able to make out violation of any of her legal rights, which could have been required this Court to interfere and issue necessary direction/order.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, however, this writ application is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner shall have liberty to pursue her case before the authorities which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) S.Ali/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 13/12/2019 Transmission Date N.A.