0

In matters   that   may   not   be  of  moment  or  a  litigation essentially  directed  against  one  organisation  or  individual the Court ought  not  to  be  entertained  or  should  be  rarely entertained.: Patna High Court.

This case was filled by Bhagwan Kumar Mahto Son of Basudeo Mahto Resident of Village- Dumari Chapya, Police Station- Taraiyan, District- Saran against The State of Bihar. The Judgment in Bhagwan Kumar Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar (Citation: CWJC No.491 of 2022) was served by the Hon’ble bench of 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. The petitioner through this petition seeks the court to pass the writ in the nature of mandamus in order to command the Respondents authorities for sifting of Power Greed station from Village-Dumari Chapya, Ward No. 1, Thana No. 140 bearing Khata No. 193, Survey No. 822 having area 14 Katha 10 Dhur, which is a public land and public way of the village-Dumari from more than 100 years of the aforesaid village and construction of Power Greed Station on the main public way of the village is harmful for life and liberty of the villagers and there is no any alternative way of the village-Dumari Chapya which connects the main road of the Public Works Department. further the Petitioner also wants the Court to direct the respondent for construction of a school and any other offices in the welfare of the society in a accordance with law in the interest of justice after demarcation of public way of the village which is a basic amenities for the villagers.

JUDGEMENT:

The court after going through the arguments disposed off the case with following observation :
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.

Click Here To View Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat