IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10405 of 2003 1. MD.SHAFIQUR RAHMAN, son of late Md. Siddique, resident of Mohalla Bakerganj, Gola Road, Police Station Pirbahore, P.O. Bankipur, Town and District Patna. 2. Md. Safdar Imam, son of late Hasan Imam, resident of Qutub Manzil, Shia Masjid Lane, Muradpur, Police Station Pirbahore, P.O. Bankipur, Town and District Patna.................Petitioenrs. Versus 1. The Patna Regional Development Authority, through its Vice Chairman. 2. The Vice Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority. 3. The Director (Urban Planning), Patna Regional Development Authority.All having their offices at Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Police Station Kotwali, Town and District Patna. 4. Fazal Imam............................................ ..Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Nayar Singh, Adv. For the Patna Municipal Corporation (Resp. Nos. 1 to 3):Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, Adv. 13 07.01.2011 The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs, delineated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, which are reproduced hereinbelow: (i) Respondents be restrained from demolishing the tenanted premises of the petitioners or taking any coercive action against them. (ii) Respondent No.1 to 3 be directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioners while processing the building plan/map submitted on behalf of their landlady namely respondent no.4 for grant of sanction vide Building Plan Case No. 1176 of 02. (iii) Any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioners are held entitled to. 2. The petitioners claim to be tenant of original respondent no.4 namely Mrs. Sayeeda Mehdi Imam, who is now dead and has been substituted. Apparently the petitioners are not the owners and 2 proprietor of building in question. The present writ petition was filed on an apprehension that respondent P.R.D.A. and its officials, at the behest of original respondent No.4, were taking steps for demolition of building in question over some portion of which the petitioners claim to have been inducted as tenant by original respondent no.4. 3. The present writ petition was filed as far back as on 22.9.2003. Though the matter was heard on different dates, but till date no interim order of stay was passed restraining the respondent authorities from demolishing the building in question. Yet there is no averment at all made either by the petitioners or by the respondents that building in question has been demolished by the respondent authorities. Apparently, the apprehension of the petitoners was completely misconceived. This matter was heard yesterday and has been heard at length today also. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Patna Municipal Corporation, a successor body of Respondent P.R.D.A., submits that the present petition is not maintainable on the basis of pleadings available on record. 5. From the materials available on record this court finds that there was some private dispute between the petitioners at one hand and original respondent no.4 at the other hand and for that reason the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 49 of 2002 and Title Suit No. 52 of 2002 respectively in the court of learned Munsif-III, Patna for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. It further appears that the dispute between the parties was amicably resolved and in that view of the matter Interlocutory Application No. 5601 of 2003 was 3 filed by the petitioners seeking permission to withdraw the present writ petition. In the aforesaid interlocutory application, it has been stated that premises in question has been handed over to a private builder for raising a multi-storey commercial/residential building and after construction of said multi-storey building, some portion has been agreed upon to be given to the petitioners on lease. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, as despite passage of more than seven years since the date of filing of the present petition, no steps has been taken by the respondent authorities for demolition of the building in question, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending any longer. Apprehension of the petitioners appears to be completely misconceived. 7. For the reasons recorded above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the present proceeding and accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. M.Rahman ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )