IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4864 of 2010 GYANWATI DEVI, W/o Anil Kumar Yadav, Resident of Mohalla-Chakaram, Police Station-Budha Colony, District-Patna. ------------------ Petitioner. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Collector, Patna in the District of Patna. 3.The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna in the District of Patna. 4.The Circle Officer, Patna Bihar, Patna. ------------------- Respondents. ----------- 2 22-03-2010 The petitioner describing himself as probono publico had preferred C.W.J.C. No.12650 of 2008 wherein a Division Bench of this Court had passed following order:- “Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the available material, we are satisfied that no order from this Court is necessary in the writ petition as the petitioner may apply to the concerned authority for implementation/execution of the order dated 13th May, 2002 passed by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna. 2.We observe that if any representation is made by the petitioner for implementation/execution of the order dated 13th May, 2002, the concerned authority shall proceed with the implementation/execution of the order dated 13th May, 2002 without any delay and take the proceeding to the logical conclusion as early as may be possible.” 2 Thereafter, M.J.C. No.143 of 2009 came to be filed alleging that the order passed on the writ petition is not complied with. This Court on 3.2.2010 had passed following order:- “This is an application for contempt under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act on the foundation that the order passed by this Court on 11.9.2008 in C.W.J.C. No.12650 of 2008 has not yet been complied with. A show cause has been filed by the answering respondent contending inter alia, that all efforts are being made to see that the order is complied with in letter and spirit and the Officer concerned has to follow the law while removing g encroachments. Having heard Mr. Ranjit kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the considered opinion that the grounds that have urged in this application can effectively be urged in a fresh writ petition so that the grievances which are being structured can appositely be redressed.” In course of hearing of this petition Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the State submitted that all steps shall be taken to remove encroachment within a period of three months. 3 We hope and trust, concerned authority shall take such steps so that people who are not entitled to remain in possession do not remain in possession in an unauthorized manner. With the aforementioned observation this writ petition is disposed of. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)