IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4559 of 2009 1. Kapil Deo Prasad, S/o Sri Lakhan Prasad. 2. Ramavatar Prasad Kushwaha, S/o Late Kisun Mahto. 3. Raghunandan Mistri, S/o Late Munas Mistri. 4. Kamta Prasad, S/o Late Bisheswar Mahto. 5. Deepak Prasad, S/o Late Thanu Prasad. 6. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Sri Prabhu Mahto. 7. Karu Prasad, S/o Sri Ghanshyam Prasad 8. Sheo Balak Prasad, S/o Sri Barho Mahto 9. Bipin Kumar, S/o Sri Rambarat Prasad 10. Ragho Prasad, S/o Sri Baldeo Prasad 11. Dinesh Kumar, S/o Sri Narayan Mahto 12. Brahmdeo Prasad, S/o Late Prayag Mahto. 13. Ram Bilas Prasad, S/o Late Gurusahay Mahto. 14. Surendra Prasad, S/o Late Mahavir Mahto. 15. Naval Kishore Prasad, S/o Sri Bindeshwar Mahto. All residents of Village- Bhagausa, P.O.-Bhagausa,P.S.- Makhdumpur, Anchal- Bajirganj, District- Gaya. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development Department, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. State of Bihar through the Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Gaya. 3. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Circle Gaya. 4. Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Division- Gaya. . 5. Divisional General Manager, Road Construction Department, ERCON- International, Magadh Sub Division, Gaya. 6. Manager, ERCON -International, Magadh Revenue Sub Division, Gaya. 7. Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 8. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Gaya. 9. Senior Officer, ERCON Division Gaya. 10. Circle Officer, Bajirganj, Gaya. For the petitioners: Mr. Indradeo Prasad, Advocate. ----------- 3. 27.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for directing the authorities for construction of road from Bajirganj–Fatehpur to Bhagausa without any delay and to punish the authorities concerned for disobedience of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Scheme and Guidelines - 2 - dated 2.11.2004. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said proposal about construction of road was approved by the authorities as far back as in the year 2007 and hence the road should have been completed within nine months thereafter as per rules, but although three years have passed no step has been taken in that regard. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that they have sent several representations in that regard before the Central Government as well as before the District Magistrate and Commissioner (Annexures 4 to 6), but no heed has been paid by them. 4. It is apparent from the writ petition that the concerned authority is the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Gaya, but the said authority has never been approached by the petitioners, although if they wanted the said Scheme to be completed expeditiously, they should have approached the said authority who could have decided the matter in accordance with law considering the directions of the Government as well as steps taken in this case. 5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the appropriate authority. Sujit (S.N. Hussain, J.)