IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.20681 OF 2011 1. SUMITA DEVI W/O DR. ASHOK KUMAR R/O MOHALLA- MANGAL BAZAR, P.O. + P.S.- NABINAGAR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD 2. KANTI DEVI W/O SRI PREM SHANKAR JASWAL R/O MOHALLA- SANICHAR BAZAR, P.O. + P.S.- NABINAGAR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD RESPONDENTS 1ST SET 5. THE NABINAGAR NAGAR PANCHAYAT THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NABINAGAR, AURANGABAD 6. THE CHAIRMAN / CHIEF EXECUTIVE, NABINAGAR NAGAR PANCHAYAT, NABINAGAR, AURANGABAD 7. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NABINAGAR NAGAR PANCHAYAT, NABINAGAR, AURANGABAD RESPONDENTS 2ND SET 8. VIJAY SINGH @ VIJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE ALAKHDEO SINGH R/O MOHALLA- SANICHAR BAZAR, P.O. + P.S.- NABINAGAR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD 9. BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH, S/O. LATE SHIV NANDAN SINGH, R/0.VILLGE-TOL, P.O. + P.S. NABINAGAR, DISTRICT AURANGABAD RESPONDENTS 3RD SET. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.Umesh Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr.Satish Kumar Sinha, AC to SCI ----- 02 24.11.2011 The instant writ petition has been filed in the form of a Public Interest Litigation on behalf of the residents of Nabinagar Municipal area seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to hold an enquiry with regard to misuse of funds and to take steps to rectify it as the respondent no.8 has grossly misused the money meant for construction of drainage in the municipal area of Nabinagar and its development which is going to prejudice the common people since the construction of drainage is being made by using substandard materials without 2 following the specification stipulated in the contract. It is stated by the petitioners that in this context, representations have been filed by the petitioners on 02.07.2011(Annexure-3) and on 28.10.2011 (Annexure-6 series), but no steps appears to have been taken by the concerned authorities in the matter. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that it would suffice if a direction is issued to Respondent nos. 2 and 4 to dispose of the representations of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible. This Court orders accordingly With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Chandran (T.Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)