IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8747 of 2010 1. SADANAND PRASAD SINGH, son of late Dashrath Prasad Singh 2. Gopal Sharan Singh, son of late Balmiki Singh 3. Binit Kumar, son of Ganpati Singh 4. Ranjit Kumar, son of Ram Naresh Pandey 5. Mahendra Singh, son of Surendra Singh 6. Md. Faiyazur Rahman, son of Md. Ainibur Rahman All resident of Balgudra, P.S. and District Lakhisarai … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai 3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Lakhisarai 4. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Road Transportation and National Highway Ministry, Govt. of India, New Delhi 5. The Chief Engineer, Road Transportation and National Highway Ministry, Govt. of India, New Delhi 6. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Lakhisarai … Respondents. ----------- 2. 19.05.2010 In this writ application the petitioners professing to act pro bono publico have prayed for the following relief: “This writ application is being filed on behalf of the petitioners abovenamed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authority to take proper decision over the objection filed by the petitioners/ villagers of the Balgudar Gram in the interest of public in process of construction of 4 lane road of N.H.80.” Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that 2 the petitioners can have hardly any objection to laudable object of construction of 4 lane road on National Highway-80 but as the said project in its execution would swallow a newly constructed residential school with an expenditure of more than Rs. 20 lacs under Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, wherein 882 boys and girls students are studying, the authorities need to address themselves to the issue of saving the school building. In this context reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioners on a communication made by the In-charge Headmaster of Madhya Vidyalaya, Balgudar (Lakhisarai) dated 27.1.2010 to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Lakhisarai making a fervent appeal to save the school building from on slot of construction of a 4 lane road. In the considered opinion of this Court, such two competing public interest, one relating to construction of a 4 lane road and the other relating to continuance of newly constructed school building involving fate and future of around 800-900 students need to be addressed by the Collector of Lakhisarai District. This Court, accordingly, disposes of this writ 3 application by giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Collector of Lakhisarai District by filing a compact representation alongwith a copy of this order for ventilation of their grievance as raised in this writ application. The Collector of Lakhisarai District would be under obligation to consider the said grievance of the petitioners in quite promptitude with an open mind that both construction of a 4 lane road and continuance of a school tent to serve the public interest and therefore, if the school building can be saved without affecting the present plan for construction of 4 lane road, an effort should be made to save both of them. If, however, removal of the school building has become a compelling necessity it is expected that the Collector of the District will also make all possible efforts to ensure that the fate and future of the students of the school in question is not adversely affected by demolition of the school building and if need be the school is shifted to some other equally suitable Government accommodation. Let it, however, be made clear that this Court has put no final words on the merits of the claim of the petitioners and the whole issue has to be gone into by the 4 Collector of Lakhisarai District strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/