Patna High Court - Orders
Vinay Krishna Singh @ Vinay Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 November, 2018
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21479 of 2018
======================================================
Vinay Krishna Singh @ Vinay Kumar Singh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, AC to AAG-7
For Nagar Parishad : Mr. Amitesh Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 20-11-2018Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The present writ application though has wrongly been labelled as BBC Act, but neither any proceeding nor any order under the said Act is under challenge.
The petitioner prays for quashing the notice bearing D.B. No. 62 dated 27.07.2018 issued under the signature of SDM, Begusarai, as contained in Annexure-4, whereby on the application of Respondent No. 9 to the effect that the petitioner is not vacating his house, the petitioner has been asked to show cause. Further prayer has been made for quashing the notice bearing D.B. No. 87 dated 18.09.2018 issued under the signature of SDM, Begusarai, as contained in Annexure-5, whereby the petitioner was directed to appear on 24.09.2018 to show cause, failing which ex-parte action will be taken. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.21479 of 2018(2) dt.20-11-2018 2/3 19.07.2018 passed by the Additional Town Commissioner, Begusarai, as contained in Annexure-7, whereby on the basis of report of Assistant Engineer, Building Division-II, Begusarai permission was given to demolish the house of Respondent No. 2 situated on Holding No. 195, Khata No. 78, Plot No. 296 in the town of Begusarai since it is in dilapidated condition.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the background of tenancy dispute the aforementioned notices for vacation of the premises as well as demolition of the same were given without any notice to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the Nagar Parishad submits that at present he does not have any instruction whether any notice has been given to the petitioner who is tenant of Respondent No. 9 and whether the demolition process has been carried out as per the order as contained in Annexure-7.
In the circumstances, let notices be issued to Respondent No. 9 under ordinary process as well as under
registered cover with A/d for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks failing which this application as against Respondent No. 9 shall stand rejected without further reference to the Bench.
In the meantime, if the structure in question has not Patna High Court CWJC No.21479 of 2018(2) dt.20-11-2018 3/3 been demolished and the petitioner is still residing in the same, the status quo as existing today shall be maintained.
It is expected from the learned counsel for the Municipal Authority to file counter affidavit.
List this matter after service of notice.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) anil/-
U