IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10039 of 2006 SHEO KUMAR PRASAD & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 19.5.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have acted against the assurance given to the petitioners for allotment of shops after reconstruction. After reconstruction though the shops have been allotted but the shops in which the petitioners were carrying out their business in allotted to them but have been allotted to strangers who were not shop keeper therein before the demolition of the building. Contention of the petitioners’ counsel is that by allotment of other shops place has been changed that will affect the business of the petitioners. These reasons have not been considered while disposing of the representations of the petitioners. I have gone through their representations by which petition of the petitioners has been rejected. This aspect has not been considered at all. Therefore, respondents are directed to reconsider the representations of the petitioners in the light of the earlier order of the court and observations made above within three months. The writ petition is disposed of. AnilKrSinha ( Prakash Chandra Verma, J.)