IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4651 of 2010 Satyendra Kumar Sinha, son of late Vishwanath Prasad, resident of Chandrika Sadan, Mohalla Amarudi Gali, P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shri Deepak Kumar, the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Shri Jitendra Kumar Sinha, the District Magistrate, Patna 4. Shri Vinit Vinayak, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna 5. Shri Manu Maharaj, The Superintendent of Police, patna 6. Shri Shridhar Mandal, the Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Patna 7. Shri Ravi Ranjan, the S.D.O., Patna Sadar, Patna 8. Shri Suresh Singh, Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna 9. Shri Jainath Singh, the Officer In-charge, Dadamkuan P.S., Patna 10. Shri Manish Kumar, the Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna … Opp.Parties ---------------------------------- 2. 20.9.2011 Heard Counsel for the parties. Having regard to the fact that the Municipal Commissioner, Patna has passed an order, a copy whereof has been filed today, this Court would hold that the earlier order of this Court dated 9.2.2008 in C.W.J.C. No. 1934/2009 has been complied. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that some fresh encroachment has already come into existence after the last encroachment was removed by the authorities of Patna Municipal Corporation with the help of law and order authorities in September, 2009 and therefore, the direction given by this Court in the order dated 9.2.2008 has not been complied in letter and spirit. In the considered opinion of this Court such submission of Mr. Verma has to be only noted for its being 2 rejected. The order of this Court dated 9.2.2008 was for removal of encroachment which was admittedly removed as is clear from Annexure-A and B to show cause reply. The petitioner even after being aware of the specific stand of the opposite parties that such an encroachment had been removed vide Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ to the show cause reply did not choose to controvert them by filing any rejoinder that such encroachment was never removed. If therefore fresh encroachment has been made, it would be always open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps against such encroachment. As a matter of fact the Municipal Commissioner in the order passed on 19.9.2011 has also indicated that the steps for removal of fresh encroachment have already been taken by issuing notice to six persons who are found to be recent encroacher after removal of the encroachment in September, 2009. It is, therefore expected that the steps taken by the Municipal Commissioner for removal of fresh encroachment will also attain its finality at the earliest preferably within a period of three months. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/