IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1353 of 2002 1. Raju Prasad, son of Kanahai Prasad 2. Bimla Devi, wife of Kanahai Prasad 3. Raghu Nath Ram, son of Jagar Nath Ram 4. Vishawa Nath Prasad, son of Baij Nath Prasad 5. Nand Kishore Prasad, son of Baij Nath Prasad 6. Ajay Kumar, son of Jagar Nath Prasad 7. Gulam Rashul, son of Hafi Noorul Hak 8. Pir Mohamad Khan, son of late Faijula Khan 9. Shyam Ji Prasad, son of Gorakha Choudhary 10. Anil Kumar, son of Bindhayachal Prasad All the petitioners are working at Motihari Civil Court, ground at Motihari P.S.-Motihari Town. District-East-Champaran Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Judge, East Champaran, Motihari 3. The Registrar, Civil Court, Motihari 4. The Nazir, Civil Court, East Champaran, Motihari Respondents ----------- For the petitioner :- Dhananjay Kumar, No.2, Advocate For the State :- Chandra Shekhar Singh, A.C. to G.A. VII 9/- 02.12.2010 Heard the parties. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the Notice/ Communication dated 01.05.2000 (Annexure-2) as also Notice dated 10.06.2001 (Annexure-3), issued by the Registrar, Civil Court, East Champaran, Motihari. By the first Notice dated 01.05.2000, the petitioners were asked to inform to the respondent-Registrar as to whether they were ready for curtailment of the area of their shops and on such curtailment, the rent of the shops were required to be enhanced by 10 percent for the financial year 2000-2001 and were required to be deposited by 03.05.2010. By the second Notice dated 10.06.2001, the petitioners were directed to remove the encroachment over certain portions of the land of the Civil 2 Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners or their ancestors were allotted the shops, constructed within the premises of Civil Court, Motihari, by the competent authority. They started running their shops and earning their livelihood. He submits that the petitioners are/were ready for curtailment of area of their shops, but the authority should have allowed them to run their shops there, on payment of proper rent, as per terms of the licence. He further submitted that initially, interim order was passed by this Court by order dated 04.03.2002 in the present proceeding, but subsequently, the aforesaid order of stay granted by this Court was vacated on 10.01.2007.Thereafter, the authority has demolished the shops in question. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that action has been taken by the respondent-authority pursuant to certain policy decision taken by the High Court in its administrative side. He has placed reliance on a Communication dated 9th March, 1995(Annexure-A) issued by the Registrar (Establishment) of the High Court. He further submits that the shops situated at Civil Court, Motihari compound were allotted to the petitioners and other persons for the benefit and welfare of litigants, but they started running those shops for commercial purposes and converted the same as market place, which has no concern with the welfare of the general litigants. 3 I have perused the materials available on the record and considered the submissions of learned counsels appearing for the parties. Taking into consideration the facts that the shops in question, which were allotted to the petitioners, have already been demolished, as per submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, no relief can be granted to them in the present proceeding. In view of demolition of shops in question, there is no question either of enhancement of rent or curtailment of the area of the shops in question. Hence, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submitted that after demolition, new shops have been constructed and the same are being allotted by the competent authority to the eligible persons. In that view of the matter, it will be open to the petitioners to file their applications before the competent authority for allotment of the vacant shops, if any, in their favour, provided they are eligible for the same, which shall be considered in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Ashwini/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J. )