IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6533 of 2010 1. BIRENDRA PRATAP SINGH, S/O LATE KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, MEMBER OF MANAGING COMMITTEE OF UCH VIDYALAYA, RAIPUR CHORE, DISTRICT- ROHTAS, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. - RAIPUR - CHORE, P.S - SHEOSAGAR, (BADDI), DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 2. VIJAY SINGH, S/O LATE HARSHU DAYAL SINGH, MEMBER OF MANAGING COMMITTEE OF UCH VIDYALAYA, RAIPUR CHORE, DISTRICT- ROHTAS, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. - RAIPUR - CHORE, P.S - SHEOSAGAR, (BADDI), DISTRICT- ROHTAS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE ART CULTURE AND YOUTH DEPARTMENT (KALA SANSKRITI AND YUYA BIBHAG), BIHAR , PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES , GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ROHTAS AT SASARAM, P.O & P.S - SASARAM, DISTRICT - ROHTAS. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, PHYSICAL EDUCATION, ROHTAS AT SASARAM, P.O & P.S - SASARAM, DISTRICT - ROHTAS. 6. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, SASARAM, P.O & P.S - SASARAM, DISTRICT - ROHTAS. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WORK DEPARTMENT, WORK DIVISION NO.2, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SHEOSAGAR, P.O AND P.S - SHEOSAGAR, DISTRICT - ROHTAS. 9. THE ANCHALADHIKARI, SHEOSAGAR, P.O AND P.S - SHEOSAGAR, DISTRICT - ROHTAS. 10. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, ROHTAS AT SASARAM, P.O & P.S - SASARAM, DISTRICT - ROHTAS. ----------- 04. 15.04.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The writ petition was filed on 15.4.2010 after serving an extra copy in the office of the Advocate General, the second copy was to facilitate an early filing of the counter affidavit by the official respondents to assist this Court in timely dispensation of justice. One year later no counter affidavit has been filed. Quite obviously non-filing of a counter affidavit is denying access to timely justice to the petitioner. Counsel for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit. The respondents appear to be labouring under the misconception that an adjournment, when the matter is first taken up, was a compulsive right in them, failing which they are denied access to justice by preventing them from placing their case. It is as if the respondents virtually seek to control the Court’s proceeding. No explanation worth name has been put forward before the Court why the counter affidavit has not been filed despite pendency of the writ application before this Court for the last one year. The Court declines such prayer. 2 On the own showing of the petitioners, the School in question has an area of 5 Acre 11 dec. It is aggrieved by the construction of a stadium. From the documents enclosed to the writ application it also appears that there is a play ground adjacent to the School which measures 4 Acres. It also appears from the representation of the School that it requires additional lands for expansion of the School. The Court finds it difficult to decipher if construction of the Football Stadium was being made within this 5 Acre 11 dec. or whether it was being made upon the land adjacent to the School, which the School desires for expansion purposes. Needless to state that, no Football Stadium for use of the general public can come up within the lands in lawful possession of the School. Conversely, if the Football Stadium has to be made within the School premises for the benefits of the students of the School, there may not be any occasion for the writ Court to interfere. Alternately, if the Football Stadium is proposed to be constructed on the lands adjacent to the School but not lawfully owned by the School but the School desires to have this land for the purposes of expansion, that is an administrative matter to be considered by the authorities themselves. The writ application is disposed with a direction to the District Education Officer to examine the grievances of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid discussion and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before him. Needless to state that any construction in the meantime, if not already over, shall have its sustainability in law dependent on the final orders that may be passed in the proceeding. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 3