Petitioner sought a writ directing BIADA to demolish a boundary wall blocking access to his industry unit. BIADA cited security concerns. The Single Judge held a writ was not an appropriate remedy and dismissed the application.
The prayer for direction to demolish the boundary wall cannot be granted as the writ is not an appropriate remedy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2108 of 2019
======================================================
Barun Kumar Sharma, S/o Dev Kant Sharma R/o ward No 5 Harpur Diloth , Police Station Samastipur District Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Prabhat, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.SC 21 Counsel for BIADA : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Niraj Kumar, Adv. Mr.Girish Nandan Abhishek, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2019
The prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ
application cannot be granted by a writ Court. Petitioner is looking for a direction to the ‘BIADA’ to demolish a part of the boundary wall from the northern side of the District Industry Unit. It is the case of the petitioner that the District Industry Unit, had constructed the boundary wall in front of the industry unit of the petitioner due to which the road of the aforesaid unit has been closed. It further appears from the submission made in the writ application itself that the boundary wall was constructed some time in the year 2014-15.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2108 of 2019(2) dt.22-04-2019 2/2
The stand of ‘BIADA’ as disclosed in the counter affidavit would show that the ‘BIADA’ is not willing to demolish the boundary wall for passages to the petitioner due to security reason. In this regard certain communications have also been brought on record as Annexure ‘R-2/B’ and Annexure ‘R2/C’. Some other reasons have also been stated in the counter affidavit.
Taking note of the aforesaid controversies, this Court finds that the writ application is not an appropriate remedy. It is dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
R.R.Ojha/- U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is the appropriate remedy to direct BIADA to demolish a boundary wall affecting the petitioner's road access.
Barun Kumar Sharma
State Of Bihar
BIADA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
