← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/2727/2018dismissed

Raj Kumari Kuar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-09-19Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2727 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.747 of 2015 ====================================================== Raj Kumari Kuar, wife of Late Shatrudhan Kumar Singh, r/o Village and PO Bhatkai, PS Taraiya, District Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Building Construction Department through its Secretary, Bihar Patna

3. The Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, North Bihar SubDivision, Patna

4. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Circle, Muzaffarpur

5. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Chapra

6. The Assistant Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Sub _ Division, Chapra

7. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Circle, Chapra ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arjun Prasad Kunwar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 19-09-2018 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that the Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Circle, Chapra (respondent No. 7) has considered the claim of the petitioner and passed order dated 15.9.2018 bearing No. 27 contained in Memo No. 869 and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

Copy of the reasoned order dated 15.9.2018 is being

Patna High Court MJC No.2727 of 2018(5) dt.19-09-2018 2/2 handed over to the Counsel for the petitioner in Court. Since the claim of the petitioner has been decided in terms of the order dated 2.4.2018 passed in CWJC No. 747 of 2015 there is no necessity of passing any order in this modification application.

Counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to challenge the reasoned order in an appropriate proceeding. With the liberty as aforesaid the instant modification application is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) snkumar/- U