IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No 4339 of 2009 1. HARIJAN VIKASKENDRA, A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT XXI OF 1860 THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT SRI DRIGONMESHWAR – AT HARDING ROAD PS – SACHIVALAYA, PO – GPO, TOW AND DIST - PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BRAJESH MALHOTTRA, THE SECRETARY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR AT BISHESWARIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. SRI RANJAN KUMAR, THE ESTATE OFFICER BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR AT BISHESWARIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. SRI TARNI DAS, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PATLIPUTRA BUILDING DIVISION (BHAWAN PRAMANDAL) BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., SOUTH BAILEY ROAD, PATNA ----------- 3 31.03.2010 The petitioner had filed the writ petition claiming that he runs a charitable school for destitute children of Harijans. He wanted to allot him some accommodation for the said charitable purpose. Pending allotment, he was allowed to occupy a small premises. This Court, on no counter affidavit being filed for considerable period, stayed any act to evict the petitioner. No sooner this order was passed, petitioner alleges that he was evicted. Alongwith contempt application, petitioner has field various letters of various authorities which were written after the writ petition was filed whereby efforts were made to locate some premises to be given to the petitioner but specifically it was nowhere denied that the petitioner was not in possession of any premises. Contempt application has been filed for violating this Court’s order not to disturb possession. In the show cause filed, it is asserted that petitioner is not in legal possession of any premises. He was never allotted any premises nor does Government policy permit such an allotment. Petitioner still 2 asserts that he was in possession of a premises and was entitled to an allotment but was wrongly denied the same. This, in my view, is the serious disputed question of fact when one side asserts that he was in possession and the other side asserts that the petitioner was never in possession. In my view, in the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioner may move the Mahadalit Ayog, recently constituted in this regard, for redressal of all his grievances. The present proceedings for contempt stands terminated. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)