IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1804 of 2005 BISHNU DEVANAND JYOTI, CHELA OF LATE HARIHARANAND JYOTI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MANIAR, P.S. MOHADDI NAGAR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR – PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHART STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA-800 001 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, DARBHANGA. 5. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, BAHADURPUR POLICESTATION, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 6. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, BETTA OUTPOST, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA – RESPONDENTS. ----------- For petitioner: Mrs. M. Chatterjee, Adv. For the State : Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, A.C. to SC-III. For Respondent no. 2 : Mr. Shekhar Singh, Adv. ------ 2/ 11-05-2011 Heard the parties. The grievance of the petitioner in the present proceeding is that Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 2000 was filed before respondent- District Magistrate, Darbhanga for providing protection to the life of the Mahanth of Usma Math in the district of Darbhanga and also for providing protection to the property belonging to the aforesaid Math, and though that case was filed as far back as on 02.09.2000 disclosing the name of private individuals, who are trying to unauthorisedly grab the property of the Math, but neither that proceeding has been disposed of nor any corrective measures has been taken by the respondent District Magistrate, Darbhanga till date. 2 Though the writ petition was filed on 07.02.2005 and matter has remained pending before this Court for more than six years, but unfortunately, till date counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the given facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner should appear before respondent District Magistrate, Darbhanga within a period of four weeks from today with a certified copy of the present order, accompanied by a detailed representation, raising his grievance, which has been raised in the present proceeding. If the petitioner appears before respondent- District Magistrate along with his representation and a certified copy of the present order, then the respondent- District Magistrate shall be obliged to look into the grievances raised on behalf of the petitioner and shall further be obliged to dispose of the aforesaid miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 2000, if it is still pending or alternatively, he shall dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other concerned persons. If some corrective measures are required to be taken, then a direction to that effect should also be issued by the respondent District Magistrate. Entire exercise must be completed by respondent District Magistrate within a period of five months from the date of 3 appearance and filing of the representation by the petitioner. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear before the respondent District Magistrate within the time prescribed by this Court, and does not file any representation along with the certified copy of the present order, then it shall be construed that the present writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner has finally been rejected by this Court. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)