IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.4117 of 2004 Smt. Jai Muni Tiwary @ Jai Mani Tiwary, Wife of Sri Purushottam Tiwary, Resident of mohalla Saketpuri, Bazar Samiti, P.S. Sultanganj, Town and District Patna ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Patna 3. The Vice Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority. 4. Smt. Ram Kumari Devi wife of Sri Bhola Nath Thakur, Resident of mohalla Saketpuri, Bazar Samiti, Patna 5. Sri Girija Singh, Son of Late Lakhan Singh Resident of mohalla Rampur Road, Bazar Samiti, P.S. Sultanganj, Patna 6. The Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna …Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, AC to SC 21 For the P.M.C/P.R.D.A.: Mr. H.S.Himkar, Advocate ------ 6 05.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent nos. 3 and 6 and the State. Petitioner by filing this writ application wanted an information about the fate of Vigilance Case No. 80(B) of 2002 filed by him against the respondent nos. 4 and 5 wherein notices were issued by the authority and inquiry was also conducted on 1.6.2006 itself. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that thereafter no information is being 2 given to him. On several occasions directions was given and indulgence was granted to the respondents for filing counter affidavit. However, no counter affidavit has been filed but the original records of the aforesaid Vigilance Case No. 80(B) of 2002 has been produced for perusal of this Court and it appears from the aforesaid order dated 17.4.2004 that from the verification report it appears that the respondents have constructed their houses in violation of the Building Byelaws and, thus, they have been directed to produce the map of the constructed houses within 15 days for post facto sanction otherwise it would be deemed that the said construction is illegal and would be removed in accordance with law and action would be taken under Sections 52 and 54 of the Act against them, which may lead to demolition of entire unauthorized construction. Thus, it is submitted that in view of the aforesaid case having already been disposed of, this writ application has become infructuous. However, from the file produced before the Court, it 3 does not appear that any action has been taken either with regard to post facto sanction or with regard to any action taken under Sections 52 and 54 of the Act. In above view of the matter, since seven years have passed after passing of the aforesaid order and about seven years have elapsed even after filing of this writ application, as prayed, the petitioner is allowed to withdraw this writ application and approach the authority concerned for proceeding in accordance with law in view of the decision already having been taken by it. This writ application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)