IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14534 of 2003 SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE SARJUG PRASAD R/O OF MOHALLA DANI BIGHA, AURANGABAD, PS-& DISTT.- AURANGABAD--PETTIIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM- COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD 3. BUDHDEO PATHAK S/O LATE ISHWAR NAND PATHAK R/O VILLAGE HARSAULI, PS.& DISTT.- AURANGABAD 4. RAM BILASH SINGH S/O LATE VIDYADHAR SINGH R/O VILLAGE CHATRA, PS & DISTT.- AURANGABAD 5. MANINDRA SHARMA S/O AWADH BIHARI SHARMA R/O VILLAGE PAUTHER, PS. PAUTHER, DISTT- AURANGABAD 6. BASANT NARAIN SINHA S/O LATE BADRI LAL R/O VILLAGE THAKURBARI ROAD, SHALPAR, PS. & Distt.- AURANGABAD 7. THE JUDGE IN-CHARGE, AURANGABAD CIVIL COURT, AURANGABAD- -- RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Poonam Kumari, Advocate For the State: Mr. P.K. Rajgrihar, JC to AAG IX For the Respondent No. 7: Mr. D.K.Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Abhinay Raj, Advocate ---------- 4 12.1.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the name of respondent no.5 which has been wrongly typed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Today a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that settlement of one of the shops in the Civil Court premises of Aurangabad for stamp vending with Mr. Manindra Sharma is arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as the said Mr. Sharma had obtained a license for stamp vending and papers much later from the petitioner and the settlement in favour of the petitioner regarding the shop in the civil court premises was from earlier period than Mr. Sharma. In view of the above he ought to have been given preference in settlement of the shop vis-à-vis from his junior. This Court is of the opinion that this could be the matter which can be verified and disposed of at the local level. In view of above, this writ application is disposed of with - 2 - a direction to the District Judge, Aurangabad that he shall hear the parties on the point as to whether Mr. Manindra Sharma was rightly allotted the shop despite having license of much later period and junior to petitioner even in allotment. If it is so, then such step may be taken to redress the grievance of the petitioner or else order may be communicated to the petitioner giving the reason as things stand today. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)