IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10066 of 2009 DINESH CHANDRA SUMAN & PULAK KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 2 24.8.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners pray for quashing of letter issued by the District Magistrate, Gopalganj vide memo no.141 dated 20.7.2009 whereby he did not accept the amount for extending the lease and had directed the petitioners to vacate the leased premises within a week. It would appear from the impugned order that the premises in question were leased for the year 2006-07 on payment of certain fees. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the shop in question was settled in view of Rule 29 of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual. The aforesaid rule provides for licence for shop in Kachahari compounds which states that shop should be allowed in Kachahari compounds only to the extent required for sale of articles, which are liable to be required by the persons attending the courts, such as refreshments, betel and tobacco and materials for writing. He submits that the petitioners had photo stat shop and stationery materials and lease was also renewed for the year 2007-08. He submits that the shops of the petitioners is catering to the need of general people visiting the courts and as such the lease should not have been terminated in terms of Rule 29 of the Bihar 2 Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual. On close look of rule 29, it would appear that the shop should be allowed in the Kachahari compounds only to the extent required therein. It would appear from the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 that the District Magistrate required the shops for government use. As such I do not find any illegality in the aforesaid order. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners stating therein that a notice has been issued to them by the Subdivisional Officer cum Building Controller, Gopalganj under section 4 of the Bihar Government Premises (R.R. & E.) Act, 1956 for vacating the shops of the petitioners. It was also mentioned therein that if the petitioners are aggrieved, they may file an appeal under section 8(1) of the Act. The petitioners submits that they have filed an objection but subsequently they have been removed forcefully vide Annexure-6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on section 4 of the B.B.C. Act to show that they were not in unauthorized occupation. In my view the reliance on aforesaid Act is misplaced in the facts of the case. After hearing counsel for the parties, as the petitioners had already been evicted from the premises in question, they may pursue any other remedy available in law. In case if the district administration finds necessity of opening of a photo stat/stationary shop in the existing premises, the petitioners may be given due 3 KHAN weightage. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)