IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8073 of 2009 MD.JAWED HODA, S/O AINUL HODA, R/O CHAUDHARY MOHALLA, P.S. KATIHAR, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. -PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH HOME COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF BIHAR. 2. THE EDUCATION COMMISSIONER, H.R.D. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR. 4. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, KATIHAR 5. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT BOARD, KATIHAR. 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KATIHAR. 7. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KATIHAR. 8. DR. NADEEM AHMAD S/O LATE BADRUDDIN KHAN, PRINCIPAL N.B.T. ISLAMIA SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KATIHAR. 9. MD. HUSSAIN, SECRETARY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, N.B.T. ISLAMIA SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KATIHAR. 1ST SET RESPONDENTS 10. MANJU BISWAS, 11. HEERAK KANTI BISWAS, 12. BABLOO BISWAS 13. PALLAV KANTI BISWAS ALL SONS OF LATE NAND GOPAL BISWAS 14. BHOWTOSH DAS, S/O ASHUTOSH DAS, 15. ASIM DUTTA S/O HARI PADO DUTTA 16. ASHISH KUMAR DUTTA, 17. ANUP KUMAR DUTTA 18. ARUP KUMAR DUTTA 19. ANOJ KUMAR DUTTA RESPONDENTS 16 TO 19 ARE ALL SONS OF HARI PADO DUTA 20. TAPAN MUKHERJEE, 21. GOPAL MUKHERJEE BOTH SONS OF GOPI NATH MUKHERJEE 22. SANDHYA MUKHERJEE, W/O GOPI NATH MUKHERJEE 23. DINESH CHANDRA MUKHERJEE S/O JUGAN CHANDRA MUKHERJEE 2 24. SUSHIL MUKAR MUKHERJEE S/O SURENDRA NATH MUKHERJEE, ALL R/O MOHALLA COLONY NO.2, KATIHAR, P.S. & DISTRICT-KATIHAR. -IIND SET RESPONDENTS. 9 13.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.8 and 9. Petitioner claims to be a public spirited person and he wants this Court to interfere in public interest and direct for removal of encroachment over land belonging to an educational Institution / School in the town of Katihar. Although the petitioner has alleged that vide Annexure-3 he had approached the Circle Officer, Katihar in the month of February, 2008 but no action has been taken and no case was instituted for removal of encroachment over public land. Learned counsel for the State has submitted on the basis of counter affidavit, that no application for institution of any case for removal of encroachment is available on the official records. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that it is for the authorities 3 competent under the relevant Act to examine the grievance of the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. For that purpose we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Circle Officer, Katihar, that if the petitioner files an application for instituting a proceeding for removal of encroachment from public land then such application shall be entertained and dispose of expeditiously in accordance with law. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) AAhmad