IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.274 of 2008 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector (D.M.), Patna ….. Appellants Versus 1. Third Eye Communication Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered office at 32 Vaibhav Apartment, Budh Margh, P.S. Kotwali, Town and District of Patna, through its Director Sangeeta Devi ……. ……. Respondent Ist Set 2. The Deputy Director Urban Poverty Elivation Programme, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Municipal Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh March, Patna 4. The Chief Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna …….. …….. Respondents 2nd Set. For the appellants: Standing Counsel – XIV For the respondents: Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Mishra, Advocate ----------- 6 10-02-2009 Respondents – appellants aggrieved by the order dated 6th of November, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC. No.10882 of 2007, has preferred this appeal under Clause – 10 of the Letters Patent. It is not in dispute that writ petitioner – respondent no.1 negotiated with the Patna Municipal Corporation ( hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation) for the right of putting up street light, maintaining them and to make payment for them. The Corporation permitted writ petitioner to put up sky -sign thereon in - 2 - order to raise money for payment of electricity bill, maintenance etc. It is an admitted position that the Corporation granted the said permission. However, the District Magistrate by orders dated 15th June, 2007 and 3rd of August, 2007 directed writ petitioner to remove the electric poles erected around the Gandhi Maidan in the town of Patna. Writ petitioner challenged the same before this Court, which has given rise to the impugned order. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ application observed that the District Magistrate in the scheme of things has no jurisdiction. In this connection his observation reads as follows: “The stand of the State is notwithstanding vesting of property with the Municipal Corporation, the District Magistrate being the head of the district had inherent authority to interfere in the matter, and more so, because the District Magistrate was heading the Patna Beautification Committee. Regrettably for neither the two positions asserted by the District Magistrate any constitutional provision, statutory authority or legal sanction was shown. The question this is simple. Is the Municipal Corporation, the master of its property or is a subordinate to the District Magistrate, who has no authority in such matter in law. To my mind, the answer is obvious. The District Magistrate may be the senior most officer in the district of the State but unless he has statutory authority to interfere with the decision of the - 3 - Municipal Corporation the Corporation remains its own master but is not subordinate to the District Magistrate.” Standing Counsel XIV appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the District Magistrate had passed the order in the light of the order dated 23rd of October, 2000 passed in CWJC. No.2290 of 1990 (Arun Kumar Mukherjee vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). The order relied on by the appellants was passed in a public interest litigation. The relevant portion whereof reads as follows: “ The District Magistrate, Patna, is present in Court and he has filed an affidavit, wherein he has mentioned about the draft plan for beautification and improvement of civil amenities. The details are given in paragraph -4 of the counter – affidavit. In our view, if the said plain is implemented the civil amenities in the town of Patna will improve. Accordingly, we approve the proposal aforementioned and the District Magistrate, Patna is directed to take appropriate steps in the said matter.” In our opinion, the aforesaid observation made by this court in the aforesaid public interest litigation shall not confer jurisdiction on the District Magistrate to direct for removal of electric poles if they have been set by writ petitioner in accordance with law. In the garb of the aforesaid order, the - 4 - District Magistrate cannot take action for beautification and improvement of civil amenities unless he is conferred with that power. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error while allowing the writ petition. We do not find any merit in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. Neyaz/- C. K. Prasad, ACJ. S. K. Sharma, J.