IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2476 of 2010 1. BINOD KUMAR S/O LATE LAKHAN LALL, R/O MOH.- PANCHAL NIWAS, BAIRAGI, P.S -DELHA, DISTT- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, GAYA. 5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, GAYA. 6. THE DISTRICT SUB-REGISTRAR, GAYA. 7. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, TOWN CIRCLE, GAYA. 8. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, TOWN CIRCLE, GAYA. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Renuka Ratnakar For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar, G.P. XI ------------ 5 22.04.2010 The petitioner was permitted to establish a canteen in the compound of the Registry Office at Gaya. He made investments and established canteen within a year, and long before he could recover his investment in any manner, he was asked to vacate because now the district administration thought that a gents waiting room at the site where canteen had just been sanctioned was of greater necessity. This court, not on any legal issue directing, but considering, the human problem requested the district administration to reconsider the decision, so that, both the gents waiting room and the canteen may operate. I am happy to note that a solution has been worked out where petitioner has been permitted to continue with his canteen for a period of one more year i.e. for the financial year 2010-11. That would give sufficient time to the petitioner to relocate his investment and sufficient time to point out, even though, the 2 agreements stipulated one months notice and immediate removal as and when district administration wanted. The petitioner is aggrieved, though, would have liked to continue as long as it may. In view of this concession, as made by the respondents, the writ petition stand disposed of. Petitioner shall not be disturbed at least till the end of this financial year. Praful (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)