IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2243 of 2004 Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate. 107-Natraj Apartments, 67-IP Extn, Delhi-92 –Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Bihar, through Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna(Bihar). 2. Executive Officer, Danapur Nizamat Municipality, Danapur, District-Patna (Bihar. --- Respondents. ----------- 3/ 24-02-2011 Heard the parties. On an apprehension that some persons may file some petition for getting their names mutated or some authority may pass some orders on the basis of such a petition with respect to the lands belonging to the petitioner, details of which have been given in paragraph-1 of the petition, the petitioner directly approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by filing a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 43 of 2004, but the same was dismissed by order dated 09.02.2004, which is reproduced herein below: “Petitioner appearing in person seeks leave of the Court to withdraw this petition to pursue other remedies that may be permissible under law. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn accordingly.” In view of nature of order passed by the Apex Court, remedy available to the petitioner was either to approach the authority concerned where such petition 2 was/ could have been filed by some persons (name not disclosed) or in alternatively he could have approached a civil court of competent jurisdiction for getting his right and title declared with respect to lands in question and for getting other ancillary reliefs. Certainly the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was/is not the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner under the law in the given facts of the case. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)