IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2123 of 1997 Sitesh Mishra, son of late Ganesh Mishra, resident of village and P.O. Bisaul, Police Station- Harlakhi, District- Madhubani, at present Member of Panchayat Samiti, Harlakhi. …….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Zila Parishad through the District Magistrate, Madhubani, at present also Incharge Deputy Development Commissioner. 3. The Block Development Officer, P.S. Harlakhi, District- Madhubani. 4. The Executive Engineer, Subdivisional Office, R.E.O. Benipatti, District- Madhubani. 5. Sri Ram Naesh Pandey, son of late Shiv Chandrika Pandey, at present Member of Legislative Assembly, Harlakhi Constitutency, District- Madhubani. ……Respondents. ----------- 06- 19.07.2011 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Anand for the petitioner, and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General No.1 for respondent nos.1,3 and 4. None appears on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 5 in spite of valid service of notice and more than adequate opportunity. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that respondent no.2 had taken a decision to construct a Saheed Samarak (Martyr’s Tomb) over the Zila Parishad land of the Bihar Government, 2 situate on Khata no.689, Khesra No.1436. The petitioner raises an issue that the District Magistrate, Madhubani, who is the Chairman of Zila Parishad, will file an affidavit affirmed by himself, justifying the erection of Smarak to commemorate the memories of those who were killed in police action. He will state the principles on which such memorials are constructed, because such projects involve considerable expenditure out of public exchequer. In many cases, such memorial gives a wrong signal to law-abiding citizens and, therefore, is not in public interest. We agree with the stand taken by the petitioner. Such indiscriminate construction of Smarak without any rational basis also involves considerable public expenditure and cannot be permitted. 3. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, and respondent no.2 is prohibited from proceeding further with the construction of Saheed Smarak in question. (S K Katriar, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.) S.K.Pathak/