IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.7626 of 2010
1. RANDHIR KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE RAMADHAR SINGH, R/O
VILLAGE- DAHAUR, P.S. BARH, DISTRICT- PATNA, PRESENTLY POSTED
AS TRACER (ANUREKHAK) CENTRAL CIRCLE, ROAD CONSTRUCTION
DEPARTMENT,PATNA.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY , ROAD CONSTRUCTION
DEPARTMENT,BIHAR,PATNA.
3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, ROAD CONSTRUCTION
DEPARTMENT,BIHAR,PATNA.
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION
DEPARTMENT,BIHAR,PATNA.
5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,CENTRAL CIRCLE, ROAD
CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT,CHHAJJU BAG,PATNA.
------------
3. 10.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State.
This Court is not persuaded to grant any
indulgence to the State for filing a counter affidavit in a writ
petition with regard to a domestic residence, copy of which
has been served in the office of the Advocate General on
29.4.2010, the second copy for the benefit of the State for
filing of the counter affidavit.
It is apparent from Anenxure-1 that the petitioner
by order dated 23.11.2009, passed by the Superintending
Engineer, Central Circle, Road Construction Department
Chhajju Bag, Patna was allotted a residential
accommodation at Danapur-Bankipur Road (Golghar
Circle) consequent to the superannuation of the earlier
incumbent Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sinha.
The petitioner claims that he settled down in the
-2-
quarter but suddenly an order dated 24.4.2010 was issued
by the same Superintending Engineer cancelling the
allotment dated 23.11.2009 with immediate effect and
allotted him another residence at C/1 Mithapur, Patna.
Learned counsel for the State submits that the
allotment made to the petitioner relates to the pool of the
Building Construction Department and therefore the order
of cancellation was passed, allotting another residence
simultaneously.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the
pendency of the writ application, the Building Construction
Department has already ousted the petitioner. He has
challenged the same in another writ application in C.W.J.C.
No. 9572 of 2010. The petitioner is interested in a
residential accommodation and he apprehends more
trouble even in possession of the new quarter allegedly
allotted unless he has the protection of this Court. The
apprehension is based on the past conduct of the
respondents.
This Court is satisfied that the order dated
24.4.2010 is completely arbitrary. It contains no reasons.
The reasons sought to be urged on behalf of the State to
explain the recitals contained in the order impugned
cannot be accepted and the order has to be tested on the
recitals contained.
-3-
Be that as it may, the impugned order itself states
that quarter No. C/1 Mithapur, Patna has been allotted to
the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that it is in an extremely dilapidated condition and unsafe
for human habitation from the point of view of safety.
Let the petitioner appear with a copy of the present
order before the Superintending Engineering concerned
who is directed to forthwith proceed to rectify quarter No.
C/1 Mithapur, Patna and ensure by proper certification
that it was safe for human habitation. Any accident in the
premises attributable to the premises being unsafe for
human habitation in all its civil and criminal consequences
will rest on the Superintending Engineer. If he is of the
opinion otherwise he shall forthwith allot other alternative
official accommodation to the petitioner.
Let this order be complied within a maximum
period of one month.
The writ application stands allowed.
P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)