IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2007 of 2010 1. SRI SURESH PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE LAL BAHADAUR SINGH R/O RAJAPUR, P.S. SRI KRISHNAPURI, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. VICE CHAIRMAN PRDA (DISSOLVED) NOW PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PATNA 3. VIGILANCE OFFICER PATNA NAGAR NIGAM, PRDA, PATNA 4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PATNA 5. DIRECTOR RAKESH CHANDRA MALHOTA HITESHI BUILCON PVT. LTD. AT PRESENT R/O GROUND FLOOR, URMILA REETA APARTMENT RAJBANSHI NAGAR ROAD NO. 2 (EXT.), AND 45, GANGA TOWER, LCT GHAT, MAINPURA, P.S. PATLIPUTRA, PATNA 6. M/S HITESI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. THROUGH REST OF ALL THE THREE DIRECTOR MRS. MADHU MALHOTRA W/O RAKESH CHANDRA MALHOTRA, MR. BIMAL KUMAR MISHRA, MR. KISHORE KUMAR, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 45, GANGA TOWER, LCT GHAT, MAINPURA, P.S. PATLIPUTRA, PATNA ----------- 02. 29.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the Patna Municipal Corporation and for the private respondent no. 5-6. The petitioner is stated to be the land owner. The private respondents are the builder. Any alleged violation of the terms of agreement arrived at between them, by one or the other is one aspect of the matter. The constructions raised allegedly violating the building laws is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner as the land owner questions the final order passed in Vigilance Case No. 475A of 2006 as being contrary to law. Be that as it may, the petitioner has adequate 2 efficacious expeditious remedy before the Municipal Building Tribunal constituted under Section 329 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. If the petitioner files such Appeal within a period of 30 days from today, let the same be considered expeditiously preferably within a maximum period of six months from the date of such presentation and disposed off, if not earlier, by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing all concerned. Learned counsel for private respondents assures the Court that no sooner that the institution of the Appeal is brought to their knowledge they shall enter appearance without any delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for interim relief. The Court is not persuaded to consider that prayer in view of the fact that the court has declined jurisdiction in the matter on account of the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal. This does not connote that the Court has declined to grant interim relief. If the petitioner seeks any interim relief pending disposal of the Appeal, that is a matter to be considered by the Municipal Corporation Tribunal in its own wisdom and merit in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)