IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3937 of 2002 ANIL KUMAR s/o Late Govind Prasad of Chhaya Studio Meena Bazar, P.S. Motihari (Town) District East Champaran. . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Motihari Municipality through its Special Officer, Motihari. 3. Special Officer, Motihari Municipality, Motihari. 4. Anchal Adhikari, Motihari Anchal, Motihari. . . . . Respondents. ----------- 4/ 18.11.2009 This case is passed over on 17.11.2009. The petitioner again prays for pass over for the day. In the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing letter no. 3 dated 04.01.2002 passed by Special Officer, Motihari, respondent no.3, canceling the agreement entered into between late Govind Prasad, father of the petitioner on the one hand and the Municipality for running a Studio under the name and Style of Chhaya Studio over the land appertaining to khata no. 2755 situated in the town of Motihari. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been admitted that an agreement has been entered into between the father of the petitioner and respondent no.2 in the year 1998. Subsequently, the father of the petitioner died and the agreement is terminated. Thereafter the petitioner has taken no step for renewing or entering agreement. It appears that as per agreement a land measuring 7ft x 25ft was leased to the petitioner’s father. This Court under order dated 02.04.2002 observed as follows: “As an interim measure, it is directed that if the petitioner has made any construction beyond 7 ft x 25 ft then the authority shall be entitled to demolish that construction without any further notice to the petitioner - 2 - but however any construction between or within 7 ft x 25 ft shall not be demolished. The petitioner is however directed that he would not be entitled to raise any objection on his part and if advised, he himself should remove any construction beyond 7 ft x 25 ft so that while the respondents are demolishing any additional construction, the construction raised by the petitioner does not suffer any loss.” In my view, the petitioner should approach the authority concerned for his reliefs first. In the back drop of the aforesaid position, this Court observes that if the petitioner moves before the appropriate authority in respect of his grievance, the same would consider his application in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The interim order passed on 02.04.2002 shall continue for three months. This writ application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)