IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1647 of 2006 SHIV NANDAN SINGH, SON OF LATE AMBIIKA SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA DEODHARPUR, P.S. TEKARI, DISTRICT GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA DISTT. GAYA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LITERACY COMMITTEE GAYA, DISTT. GAYA. 4. THE SECRETARY DISTRICT LITERACY COMMITTEE, GAYA DISST. GAYA. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CUM SECRETARY BLOCK LITERACY COMMITTEE, TEKARI DISTT. GAYA. 6. THE PRAMUKH CUM CHAIRMAN BLOCK LITERACY COMMITTEE, TEKARI, DISTT. GAYA. ----------- 02. 27.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State who has not filed any counter affidavit in the matter disputing the contents of the writ petition. 2. Petitioner is the owner of the house which was let out to the Block Literacy Committee, Tekari(hereinafter referred to as the Committee) with effect from 16.7.2003, as is evident from letter no.01A dated 16.7.2003, Annexure-1 issued by the Pramukh cum Chairman of the Committee. Having occupied the house of the petitioner the Committee paid the rent of the house in question from 16.7.2003 till 30.6.2004. 3. Present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities i.e. the Block Development Officer cum Secretary of the Committee to pay the rent of the house in question for the period 1.7.2004 till 31.7.2005, the date on which the house was vacated, as is evident from the instructions of the Block Development Officer cum Secretary of the Committee, respondent no.5 contained in letter no.17 dated 1.8.2005, Annexure-2. 4. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. He states - 2 - that the house in question was vacated by the Committee much earlier and it was the petitioner who locked the premises and removed the lock on 1.8.2005. Aforesaid submission has not been made on any affidavit. The authorities have not filed any counter affidavit in the matter in spite of the fact that the matter remained pending in this Court for about four years, the averments made in the writ petition is to be accepted as true. When such observation was made by this Court, learned counsel for the State submitted that counter affidavit disputing the assertions of the petitioner has been filed, whereafter report was sought from the Registry. Registry also confirmed under report dated 27.1.2011 that no counter affidavit has been filed in the matter. 5. As the respondents have not disputed the averments of the petitioner that the house in question was vacated by the Committee with effect from 1.8.2005, I have no option but to direct the Block Development Officer cum Secretary of the Committee, respondent no.5 to pay the arrears of rent to the petitioner for the period between 1.7.2004 till 31.7.2005, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before respondent no.5 in the light of his own letter dated 1.8.2005, Annexure-2. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)