Patna High Court - Orders
Manoj Kumar Bharti vs The Municipal Building Tribunal & Ors on 17 March, 2016
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19881 of 2014
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Bharti
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Municipal Building Tribunal & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Hargovind Singh Himkar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
6 17-03-2016A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed enclosing some newspaper clippings and with the help of which it is stated that the canals existing in the town and district of Patna is going to be covered. It is submitted by Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha learned petitioner counsel that a decision has been taken by the State in its Urban Development Department to cover all the public drains existing in the town and district of Patna which are seven in number and would include the public drain existing at Anandpuri. He further with reference to the detailed project report issued by the Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation submits that the list of seven public drains mentioned therein includes Rajapul and Anandpuri nala across which the building in question is situated.
The argument advanced by Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha appearing for the petitioner is that should these drains be covered Patna High Court CWJC No.19881 of 2014 (6) dt.17-03-2016 2 then the width of the road abutting the building would automatically increase and whereafter there would not be any occasion for carrying out any demolition.
In view of the rejoinder so filed, let the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, the Divisional Commissioner, Patna and the Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited through its Managing Director be added as party respondent.
Let two copies of the entire pleadings be served in the office of the Advocate General and since it is stated at the Bar that there is a retained counsel for the Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited as well, let two copies be also served on the retained counsel.
Put up this matter under the same heading on 29.3.2016.
(Jyoti Saran, J) S.Sb/-
U