IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18470 of 2009 1. PRAMOD KUMAR NIRALA S/O SRI ASHARFI LAL R/O KAMLA NEHRU NAGAR, P.O- G.P.O. ,P.S- KOTWALI, DISTT- PATNA 2. BINOD KUAMR PASWAN S/O RAMASHISH PASWAN R/O KAMLA NEHRU NAGAR, P.O- G.P.O. ,P.S- KOTWALI, DISTT- PATNA 3. MD. KALAM AZAD S/O LATE MD. SULEMAN R/O KAMLA NEHRU NAGAR, P.O- G.P.O. ,P.S- KOTWALI, DISTT- PATNA 4. ALOK KUMAR DINKAR S/O PRAMOD KUMAR NIRALA R/O KAMLA NEHRU NAGAR, P.O- G.P.O. ,P.S- KOTWALI, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 3. SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 6. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, PATNA 7. ZILA YOJANA OFFICER, PATNA ----------- 03. 18.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The four petitioners seek the relief of mandamus to support and complete construction of 1250 houses for families in the slum under the B.S.U.P. scheme sanctioned by the Government of India. It appears that the petitioners had come earlier to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11728 of 1999. They questioned the finding that they were not persons living below the poverty line when the State stated to the contrary. This Court declined to issue any positive orders determining whether they were entitled to benefit of the National Slum Development Programme as below the poverty line persons but held they ought to have been 2 given an opportunity before holding so. The writ petition was pressed on behalf of petitioner nos. 1 and 4 who were directed to pursue matters before the authorities with relevant papers with regard to their economic condition when the authorities after enquiry were directed to take an appropriate decision. Petitioners 2 and 4 did not press the writ application. Paragraph 20 of the present writ application acknowledges the facts as noticed above that all four had moved this Court earlier. According to their case, in paragraph 21, it is only petitioners 1 and 4 who could have file the representation. They alleged that their representation dated 3.12.1999 has not been considered leading to writ application 10 years later. A counter affidavit has been filed. In paragraph- 10 of the counter affidavit the respondents state that the petitioners failed to appear with relevant papers to demonstrate their economic condition for appropriate consideration. There is no rejoinder to the same. The Court is not enthused to infuse afresh lease of life in this belated and otherwise stale litigation The application is dismissed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)