IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5054 of 2006 SANJAY SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ambuj Narayan Choubey, Advocate For the Patna Municipal Corporation : Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, Advocate 8 24.06.2008 Heard learned counsel for both sides. Annexure – 5 is the general notice by virtue of which certain settlements made by Patna Municipal Corporation with several vendors or otherwise for collection of toll etc. has been determined. Petitioners approached this court challenging the same to be arbitrary as well as in violation of rules of natural justice. It is not in dispute that the petitioner acquired a right by virtue of agreements which were entered between the Municipal Corporation and them as would be evident from perusal of Annexure – 2. The effect of public notice is the determination of the agreement. Since a large number of persons were involved it seems instead of individual notice, in view of the direction of the Division Bench of this Court, a general notice came to be issued. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the reason for taking such as a decision is obvious from the notice itself. A direction was issued by the High Court and the authorities only implemented the same. The writ application of similar kinds have already been dismissed and the reasons are assigned therein. The present case is no different from the rest in this regard. My attention has been brought to Annexure – B to the supplementary - 2 - counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Patna Municipal Corporation in addition to Annexure – A which is already on record earlier along with counter affidavit. Even otherwise, the Court is of the opinion that if the petitioners feel that breach of the agreement has been committed by the municipal authorities, they have civil remedies available before a court of competent jurisdiction. They can seek appropriate compensation or declarations as the case may be. In the given facts and circumstances, Article 226 may not be the answer to this problem as the court is not inclined to exercise discretion. The writ application stands dismissed, the earlier stay order in favour of the petitioners stands vacated by virtue of the same. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)