Disposed

Baidyanath Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Aug 2024CWJC/10078/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL alleging apprehended house construction on the Mahi river bed in Saran district, risking flood. The court noted an earlier judgment had already issued directions against such encroachment and that the State's counter affidavit showed encroachments being removed through due process. It declined to pass repeated directions and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with direction that encroachments be removed as stated in the counter affidavit after due process.

Baidyanath Prasad Vs The State of Bihar — Environment and Pollution | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10078 of 2024

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Baidyanath Prasad Son of Shiva Parshi Ray, (The Secretary of Gramin Vikash Manch, Shahpur Diara), Resident of Vill- Shahpur Diara, P.S.- Sonepur, DistSaran.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Secretary, Forest and Environment, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra.

¶11

Superintendent of Police, Saran, Chapra.

¶12

Sub. Divisional Officer, Sonepur, Saran.

¶13

Block Development Officer, Sonepur, Saran.

¶14

Circle Officer, Sonepur, Saran.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.P.K.Shahi, A.G. Mr. Vikas Kumar, AC to AG

¶17

======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶19

Date : 23-08-2024

¶20

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition alleging that there is apprehension of construction of houses in the ‘ Mahi ’ river, which is a drainage river flowing through different blocks of Saran District, which merges into the Gandak river. The apprehension is that the construction of

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.10078 of 2024 dt.23-08-2024 2/3

¶22

houses in the river bed would result in blockage of water and accentuate the flood situation.

¶23

The Public Interest Litigation has been filed without any of the parties who are attempting such construction in the river bed; impleaded.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the petitioner specifically refers to a judgment in CWJC No. 7748 of 2013 which was disposed of on 22.08.2013, produced along with the writ petition. The allegation was the very same, of construction on the river bed of ‘ Mahi ’. There was a specific direction issued that water ways would not be encroached or blocked through temporary or permanent structures and that all encroachments will be removed by the District Administration. As far as the submission of the Water Resource Department regarding indispensable constructions, it was held that this does not meet with the approval of the court and that no construction should be made on the river bed.

¶25

As pointed out by the learned Advocate General, already there is a direction issued and there is no requirement for repeated directions on the same issue. We also notice that the counter affidavit specifically avers that there was some encroachments reported on the western side, which are taken up

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.10078 of 2024 dt.23-08-2024 3/3

¶27

for removal after following due process of law. Obviously, notices will have to be issued to the encroachers and the constructions removed.

¶28

In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to keep the writ petition pending. Appropriate action shall be taken as stated in the counter affidavit for removal of such encroachments.

¶29

We close the writ petition with the above

¶30

reservation.

¶31

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶32

( Partha Sarthy, J)

¶33

Sujit/-

¶34

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	27.08.2024
Transmission Date

Baidyanath Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baidyanath Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Asharfi Road lines Vs The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Sabita Singh Vs The Union of India

Tanga Majdoor Sangh Vs The State of Bihar

Shiv Kumar, through its Proprietor Shiv Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md Rizwan Vs The State Of Bihar

Based on the news published in the newspaper, Vs The State of Bihar represented by the Chief Secretary