IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7525 of 2006 KRISHNA PRASAD KESHRI, SON OF SHANKAR PRASAD KESHRI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KALIGANJ, P.S. ARA NAGAR, DIST. BHOJPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COLLECTOR ARA, BHOJPUR. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, ARA BHOJPUR. 4. SRI CHANDRAMAULI PRASAD, THE PRINCIPAL GOVT. ZILA SCHOOL, ARA BHOJPUR. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, ARA SADAR, ARA BHOJPUR. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha, Advocate. For the State : M/s A. Amannulah, GA-4, Arun Kr. Prasad, AC to GA-4. ----------- 02. 19.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner was allotted shop in the premises of Ara Zila School. Later his occupation of the shop was questioned by the authorities and he filed C.W.J.C. No.7240 of 2004 which was disposed of under orders dated 21.2.2005, Annexure-8 observing that petitioner be allowed to continue his activities over the shop allotted to him. When orders of this Court was not complied with he filed contempt petition bearing M.J.C. No.711 of 2005. By filing show cause in the said M.J.C., authorities produced order dated 9.10.2004, Annexure-9 whereunder allotment of the shop made in favour of the petitioner and others was cancelled. This Court having perused the said order dispose of the contempt petition under orders dated 10.2.2006 granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order by filing 2 another writ petition. By filing present writ petition order dated 9.10.2004 has been challenged on the ground that by passing order dated 9.10.2004 as also by demolishing the shop, as is evident from order dated 5.6.2009, Annexure-F to the counter affidavit the authorities have discriminated against the petitioner as the others who were allotted different shop premises within the campus of the Zila School, Ara have been allowed to remain but the shop of the petitioner has been demolished. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the State authorities should take similar action as against the petitioner and other allottees and accordingly, dispose of the writ petition with aforesaid observation and direction not to discriminate the petitioner with other allottees not only the three referred to in the order dated 9.10.2004 but also other allottee(s) of the school campus. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)