Anil Yadav v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21568 of 2018 ====================================================== Anil Yadav Son of Shibu Yadav, Resident of Village- Rahimpur, P.O.- Mathar, P.S.- Muffasil, Distt.- Khagaria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India.

2.

The Chief General Manager, Eastern Central Railway, Hazipur. 3.

The General Manager, Eastern Central Railway, Hazipur. 4.

The Divisional Manager Engineering Eastern Central Railway, Samastipur. 5.

The Divisional Manager Railway, Eastern Central Railway, Samastipur Head Quarter.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Mahasweta Chatterjee, Asdvocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Jawed Jaffar Khan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 09-12-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):

"I. That an appropriate writ may be issued commanding upon the Respondent No-4 the Divisional Manager (Engineering) Eastern Central Railway, Samastipur to accept the bid amount of Rs. 18,15001/- from the petitioner and to settle water area situated in both sides of the railway track between Mansi (excluding) KM-2/0 to Sahasra KM39/1 as per the advertisement. II. That an appropriate writ may be issued

Patna High Court CWJC No.21568 of 2018(6) dt.09-12-2025 2/2 commanding upon the Respondent No-4 Divisional Manager (Engineering) Eastern Central Railway. Samastipur to give the petitioner fishing right after completing the procedure of settlement immediately without any delay.

III. That an appropriate writ may be issued commanding upon the Respondents Authorities not to settle both sides of the railway track between Mansi (excluding) KM-2/0 to Sahasra KM-39/1 as per the advertisement during the pendency of this writ application.

IV. That any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are entitled to."

3. Mr. Ram Nibash Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition.

4. Permission accorded.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U