IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6046 of 2008 Raghunandan Prasad Singh son of Late Kameshwar Singh, Resident of Village- Sardiha, P.S. Simri Bakhtiarpur, Dist.-Saharsa. . . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Saharsa 3. The Additional Collector (Revenue) Saharsa 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Simari, Bhakhatiarpur, Saharsa 5. Anchal Adhikari, Simari Bhakhtiapur, Saharsa 6. Superintendent of Police, Saharsa 7. Officer-incharge, police Station, Simari, Bhakhatiapur 8. Arun Kumar Yadav son of Chhotkan Mndal, Resident of Village- Karua, P.S.-Simari Bhakhtiapur, Dist- Saharsa 9. Govind Yadav son of Sonu Yadav, Resident of Village- Karua, P.S. Simari Bhakhtiarpur, Dist- Saharsa. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 6/ 20.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. From perusal of the counter affidavit, which has been filed on behalf of the official respondents as well as pleadings made in the writ application, prima facie, there seems to be a dispute of a private kind between the petitioner as well as private respondents no. 8 and 9. If that is so, petitioner has many remedies available under common law. There is no extra special reason while the court should intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ application is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to invoke the powers of the competent court of competent jurisdiction or as well as Executive authorities to protect him. This interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No. 2877 of 2008 as well as writ application is disposed of with the above observation. Uday/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J,)