IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.872 of 2009 Ram Narain Roy son of sri Anandi Rai, resident of village Jitwarpur Nizamat, P.O. Samastipur College, P.S. MuffasilSamastipur, District Samastipur…….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Patna, 2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur, 3. Union of India through the General manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur, 4. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur, 5. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur Division, Samastipur, 6. The Divisional Railway Manager(Engineering), East Central Railway, Samastipur Division, Samastipur, 7. The Nagar Parishad, Samastipur, through its Executive Officer, 8. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Samastipur, … …Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Suraj Narayan Yadav, Advocate, For the Railways: Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Advocate, For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Chongdar, AC to AAG 2 … 6 04.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The main grievance of the writ petitioner in the writ application is that because of construction of boundary wall by the Railway Authorities in May 2008 without making any other alternative arrangement, the flow of waste water/rain water from the 100 years old underground drainage has been totally stopped resulting into submerging of the entire area in water in rainy season and also in the low area in dry season putting the 2 people of that area in unhealthy and hazardous condition. In the above circumstances, by order dated 25.03.2009 we had directed the Senior Officers of the State Government and the Railways to sit together and find out solution of the problem. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, constituted a three-member Coordination Committee and found out the ways and means to solve the drainage problem and a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 enclosing therewith a copy of the proceeding as annexure B. We are of the view that if the above suggestion, as mentioned in annexure B to the supplementary counter affidavit, is implemented, the problems raised by the petitioner in this writ application would be solved. We direct the respondents to implement the schemes, as suggested in the proceeding and while implementing the scheme, as contained in annexure B to the supplementary counter affidavit, suggestion of the petitioner, if any, may also be 3 considered by the respondent authorities. With the above direction/observation, this application is disposed of. (J.B. Koshy, CJ) SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)