IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11256 of 2002 Mr. SAMRENDRA KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 30.4.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for Patna Municipal Corporation, the substituted body of Patna Regional Development Authority (P.R.D.A.). In this writ application a prayer has been made to the following effect: “ … … to admit this writ petition issue Rule NISI calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why an appropriate writ be not issued in quashing Annexure 3 and why the resident of the other side of the lane shall not contribute the share of land for the purpose of land and to reply by the respondent the said rule … ” On perusal of Annexure 3 it is found that it is the newspaper clipping, a perception of a correspondent, who has merely reported with regard to slow progress of demolition. Counsel for the petitioner, however, insists that the said Annexure 3 as it also explains with regard to taking of demolition in Exhibition Road, the same must 2 be quashed so as to protect the right of the petitioner. It is well known that this Court exercising the power of issuance of writ of certiorari or mandamus can only pass an order against the authority or retrain an authority from doing an act which is not permissible in law, but then what a correspondent of a newspaper writes in a newspaper cannot be made subject matter of judicial review. Thus, on the own showing of the petitioner the first part of the prayer in the writ application was/is wholly misconceived. Coming to the second part of the prayer in the writ application, the plea of the petitioner that the then P.R.D.A. and now Patna Municipal Corporation should be restrained till all the residents on both sides of the lane contribute land for construction of the road by in itself has an element of adjudication of the private rights vis-à-vis public duties. The petitioner has not impleaded a single person amongst the resident of the other side of 3 the lane and as such, it would be difficult for this Court to accept one sided story given by the petitioner in this writ application. In that view of the matter, even the second part of the relief in this writ application was/is wholly misconceived. The last part of the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that apart from inception of setting up Exhibition Road that the petitioner had already left sufficient space for construction of the road and that the people on the other side of the road have encroached the road, in the first instance had to be raised before the authority of the P.R.D.A. There is nothing to show at least in the writ application that the petitioner had approached the authorities of the P.R.D.A. and his approaching this Court on the basis of a newspaper was in fact a wholly premature act. In any event the petitioner has enjoyed the stay order of this Court for a period of more than six years and therefore, if the petitioner files a representation before the Town Municipal Commissioner of Patna 4 Municipal Corporation explaining his grievance within a period of 15 days from today, the interim order shall continue for a period of next three months in which period the Town Municipal Corporation must decide the dispute once-for-all. The stay order shall cease to operate the day on which the Town Municipal Commissioner will finally pass an order. With the aforementioned observation, this application stands disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/