Every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the court: Patna High Court.
This case was filled by Rakesh Kumar Sinha Son of Shri Kapil Sinha Resident of Village Mohan Chak, P.O. and P.S. – Islampur, District- Nalanda at present president of Shivam Complex flat number 305 near NMC Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna against The State of Bihar. The Judgment in Rakesh Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar (Citation: CWJC No.540 of 2022) was served by HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This case was filled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , 1950. Through this petition the petitioner sought Court to issue the Writ to ensure better drainage system with regard to the dirt drain system in the Nagar Panchayat of Islampur, Mohan Chak, Nalanda. The issue is causing loss to the farmers of the area due to water logging in their agricultural field. Further the Petitioner also wants the Court to direct Railway authorities to build a small bridge on the Railway line of Islampur-Fatuha area for better drainage system and also to pay compensation of INR 1000000/- to the affected people.
JUDGEMENT:
After going through the case and the arguments of both the sides the Hon’ble Court disposed of the Petitioner with following observation
(a)Petitioner shall approach the authority concerned within a period of four weeks from today by filing a representation for redressal of the grievance(s);
(b) The authority concerned shall consider and dispose it of expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of four months from the date of its filing along with a copy of this order;
(c) Needless to add, while considering such representation, principles of natural justice shall be followed and due opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties;
(d) Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law;
(e) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch;
(f) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if the need so rises subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action;
(g) We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All issues are left open.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AKANKSHA.