IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17291 of 2009 1. SMT.SHAKUNTALA DEVI W/O SRI LALLU RAM R/O MOHALLA- YARPUR JOGIYA TOLA WARD NO. 11/8, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTT.- PATNA (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA, BIHAR 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA, BIHAR 6. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, GARDANIBAGH POLICE STATION, PATNA 7. POONAM DEVI W/O MUNNA RAI R/O VILL.- NARHA, P.S. MEGRAUL, DISTT.- SHIVHAR, PRESENTLY RESIDE ON RENT IN THE HOUSE OF PETITIONER SHAKUNTALA DEVI 8. MUNNA RAI S/O LATE SHANKAR RAI R/O VILL.- NARHA, P.S. MEGRAUL DISTT.- SHIVHAR PRESENTLY RESIDE ON RENT IN THE HOUSE OF PETITIONER SHAKUNTALA DEVI ----------- 2/ 04/01/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner acknowledges respondent Nos.7 and 8 to be her tenants with whom she also entered into an agreement for sale which did not fructify. She now seeks their eviction and arrears of rent. The dispute appears to be purely private in nature for which the petitioner has adequate alternative remedies under the civil laws whether it is by way of an eviction suit or a claim for arrears of rent or a money claim as she may be advised. The Supreme Court in AIR 1993 1225 (Mohan Pandey and another v. Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria and others) at paragraph-6 has held that in such conditions - 2 - the Courts should not interfere in exercise of powers under Article-226 of the Constitution holding as follows:- “6. … It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. …. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly.” Leave is therefore sought to withdraw the writ application to pursue the alternative civil remedies as the petitioner may be advised. It is expected that any such application of the petitioner before the appropriate forum shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. The writ application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)