IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10020 of 2010 ================================================ Banke Sharma, S/o Late Thana Singh, R/o Vill.- Shreewar, P.O.- Gopalpur, P.S.- Naubatpur, Distt.- Patna ……..…….…… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Patna 3. The District Superintendent of Education-Cum-District Co- Ordinator, Bihar Education Priyojna, Patna 4. Junior Engineer, Bihar Building Construction Department, Patna- Cum-Incharge of Construction Work of Shreewar Gopalpur, Naubatpur-2, Patna 5. Acting Headmaster, Madhya Vidayalaya, Shreewar Gopalpur, Naubatpur-2, Distt.- Patna 6. The Secretary, Madhya Vidyalaya, Shreewar Gopalpur, Naubatpur-2, Patna ……………………….…………. Respondents. ================================================ Appearance: For the petitioner: Mr Shree Kant Pandey, Advocate. For the State: Mr Sheojee Prasad, G.P. II. For the respondent no.5: Mr Nand Bansh Nr. Singh, Advocate. =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5. 09.09.2010. Heard the learned Advocates. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Banke Sharma of Village Shreewar, P.O. – Gopalpur, District – Patna in Public Interest. It is the complaint of the petitioner that the respondent authorities have failed in their duties in respect of construction of the building for the school, namely, 2 Madhya Vidyalaya, Shreewar Gopalpur, Naubatpur-2, Patna. He has submitted that the respondent no. 3 has received funds for construction of the building. The construction work of the building has been entrusted to the respondent no. 4, Junior Engineer. Neither the construction has been completed nor is the quality of the construction according to the prescribed specifications. In answer to the Writ Petition, the respondent no. 4 has filed counter affidavit. He has submitted that he is Junior Engineer appointed by Bihar Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad, Patna on contract basis and he was not responsible for the construction of the building; his duty was confined to supervision alone. It is his case that the construction of the building has already been completed in terms with the estimate. As to the boundary wall, it is stated that out of 447 ft. of the boundary wall only 179 ft. has been constructed, rest has been withheld on account of some dispute raised by a villager. The In-charge Headmaster of the School has also filed affidavit. He has stated that no compromise has been made with the safety of the students and no sub-standard material has been used and that the construction is up to the mark. Today he has produced copy of the communication dated 07.04.2010 addressed to the Block Education Extension Officer. It states that one Banke Sharma (the present petitioner) has raised a dispute in respect of the land on which the boundary wall is to be constructed. Learned Advocate Mr Shree Kant Pandey has appeared for the writ petitioner. He has perused the 3 aforesaid communication dated 07.04.2010. He states that the petitioner has not raised any dispute in respect of the land as suggested in the communication. He has also placed certain photographs on the record. It is evident that some of the construction of the building is made in the month of August 2010 after the date of this petition and after the respondents entered their appearance and after the order was made on 09.08.2010. The photographs also belie the statements made by the respondent no. 4, the Junior Engineer and the respondent no. 5, the Headmaster. It is evident that the construction is of very poor quality. The walls of the building indicate seepage even in absence of normal rains. The flooring is of pathetic quality. Cracks are evident in the compound wall just constructed. The scenario betrays poor quality of construction, use of inferior construction materials and poor workmanship. This constrains us to observe that the respondent no. 4 has failed in his duty to supervise the construction. The Headmaster is in tow. We direct the respondent no. 3, District Superintendent of Education – cum – District Co- ordinator, Bihar Education Pariyojna, Patna and the respondent no. 4, Junior Engineer, Bihar Building Construction Department, Patna – cum – Incharge of Construction work of Shreewar Gopalpur, Naubatpur-2, Patna to immediately take up the repair works and seal the loopholes in the building. We also direct the respondent no. 3 to take appropriate disciplinary proceeding against the respondent no. 4 for he has evidently failed in his duty of supervision and to take proper action against the concerned 4 contractor. Needless to say that the respondent no. 3 will initiate the disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law. Necessary repairs of the building and the construction of the boundary wall will be completed within three months from today. The compliance will be reported to this Court by 15th January 2011. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. In case of failure of the respondents in complying with the aforesaid directions, liberty is reserved to the writ petitioner to revive this petition. Dilip ( R.M. Doshit, CJ ) ( Jyoti Saran, J )