IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1045 of 2013 ====================================================== Ram Narain Choudhary Son Of Late Keshwar Choudhary Resident Of Ward No. 9, P.O.- Sheohar, District- Sheohar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Collector, Sheohar 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sheohar 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Sheohar 5. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Sheohar, District- Sheohar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Mohan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Prakhar Jha, G.P.-27 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 9 04-09-2025 Heard Mr. Rajesh Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s: (i) for issuance of a writ/writs in the nature of a writ of certiorari for quashing of an order dated 28.01.2009 passed by the respondent Collector, in Misc. Case no. 01/2009, whereby and whereunder he pleased to hold that the construction of lavatory over the flank of public road in Khesra no. 400 is being made in public Patna High Court CWJC No.1045 of 2013(9) dt.04-09-2025 2/10 interest, instead of abide by the Hon'ble High Court's directions to avoid such constructions on road-flanks and for further order/orders, direction/directions commanding the respondents to remove and/or shift the same to any other place and further for other relief /reliefs for which the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case may entitle too. 3. The matrix of facts giving rise the present case is/are as follows: 4. The petitioner claims to have purchased the homestead land on 22.04.1978 and 20.12.1979 from Ram Awatar Singh which was settled by the erstwhile Sheohar Estate. 5. The details of the land is/are as follows: Ward no.07 (old) – 11 (new); khata no. 160; Survey (Khesra) no. 398; area about 1.78 acres; mauza-Rasidpur; District-Sheohar. 6. In the year 2000, upon knowledge that the State respondents are taking steps for the construction of a lavatory, a representation was preferred (Annexure-4 to the petition). The Patna High Court CWJC No.1045 of 2013(9) dt.04-09-2025 3/10 grievance raised in the representation was it will prejudice his entrance/exit to the road. 7. Since there was no response and a notice dated 08.10.2008 came to be published for the construction of the lavatory, he preferred CWJC No. 17218 of 2008 (Ramnarayan Choudhary vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.) for quashing of the said notice which according to him was to be constructed on the flank of the road at the said place. 8. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 08.12.2008 with a direction to the petitioner to move before the Collector, Sheohar who shall be passing an appropriate order and till an order comes, they shall not be taking any steps for the construction of the lavatory/“Sulabh Sauchalaya”(Annexure-7 to the petition). 9. The petitioner thereafter moved before the Collector, Shoehar who noticed the parties including the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sheohar. Thereafter, having found that the construction of “Sulabh Sauchalaya” is not proposed on the flank of the road rather in a vacant State Government land, disposed it of on 28.01.2009 (Annexure-11 to the petition). 10. The order dated 28.01.2009 read as follows: U;k;ky;] lekgRrkZ] f”kogj Patna High Court CWJC No.1045 of 2013(9) dt.04-09-2025 4/10 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 ua 17718@2008 jkeukjk;.k pkS/kjh cuke fcgkj ljdkj ,oa vU; &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& vkns”k 28-01-09 ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 ua 17718@2008 esa fnukad 08-12-08 dks ikfjr U;k;kns”k ds vkyksd esa nksuks i{kksa dks lwpuk nsdj lquk x;k ,oa muds }kjk nkf[ky fd;s x;s dkxtkrksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vkosnd jkeuk;.k pkS/kjh dk dguk gS fd ekStk jlhniqj 152] [kkrk ua 397] [ksljk ua 400 ij tks “kkSpky; uxj iapk;r }kjk lM+d dh Hkwfe dks vfrdze.k dj cuk;k tk jgk gS] mlls mudks ?kj ls fudkl esa ck/kk igWwpsxk rFkk lM+d ij vfrdze.k gksxkA vr% bls can fd;k tk;s ,oa nwljs txg LFkkukarfjr fd;k tk;sA dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh] uxj iapk;r dk dguk gS fd izLrkfor lqyHk “kkSpky; jlhniqj ds xzkeh.kksa ds fy, fcgkj ljdkj dh Hkwfe [ksljk ua0 400 ijrh tehu ij cuk;k tk jgk gSA vkosnd dh bl Hkwfe ds if”pe esa 1-78 ¼,d ,dM+ vBgRrj½ fM0 Hkwfe gSA vr% buds fudkl esa ck/kk igqWpsxh] rF;ksa ls ijs gSA dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh] uxj iapk;r }kjk 04-07-1996+ dh dk;Zokgh izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftlesa f”kogj uxj ds thjksekbZy ds vkl&ikl “kkSpky; cukus gsrq dk;Z Patna High Court CWJC No.1045 of 2013(9) dt.04-09-2025 5/10 ;kstuk cuk;h xbZ gS ,oa blh dk;Z;kstuk ds vk/kkj ij bl “kkSpky; ds fuekZ.k dk izLrko gSA nksuksa i{kksa ds dkxtkrksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Li’V gksrk gS fd uxj iapk;r }kjk 04-07-1996 dks ikfjr dk;Z;kstuk ¼Action Plan½ ds vkyksd esa thjksekbZy ds ikl fcgkj ljdkj ds [ksljk ua0 400 fdLe tehu ijrh ij “kkSpky; dk fuekZ.k yksd fgr esa fd;k tk jgk gSA bl “kkSpky; ds fuekZ.k ls xzkeh.k iFk ij vkokxeu esa dksbZ ck/kk ugha gksxkA Hkfo’; esa bl Hkw[kaM la0 400 ij dksbZ fuekZ.k uxj iapk;r }kjk ugha fd;k tk;sA vkns”k dh izfr lHkh lacaf/kr dks HkstsaA ys[kkfir ,oa la”kksf/kr g0&@ vLi’V g0&@ vLi’V lekgRrkZ] lekgRrkZ] f”kogjA f”kogjA (emphasis added) 11. It is to be noted that the petitioner made a requisition for certified copy of the order dated 28.01.2009 on 26.03.2009 and on the same day, it was received on his behalf by the one Bhagya Chandra Choudhary. The petitioner has acknowledged having received the copy of the order in para-16 of the petition. Four years later, the writ petition was filed. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State respondents have not acted in the light of the judgment Patna High Court CWJC No.1045 of 2013(9) dt.04-09-2025 6/10 passed by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Binod Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2003(1) PLJR 396. 13. He refers para-2 of the judgment which read as follows: 2. That a lavatory is being constructed at the site indicated is not in issue. The position of the lavatory has been shown by the Petitioners in a map, which is appended at annexure 5 to the rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit of the Respondents. The map has been certified by the Amin of the village Kurkihar, P.S. Wazirganj, District Gaya. The position of the lavatory is indicated on the road itself. Ext. D/1 also annexed with the counter affidavit of the Respondents is also a map showing location of the lavatory on the same plot 1.e. plot No. 534. The position is no different than indicated by the Petitioners. Thus, on a statement of fact there is no Patna High Court CWJC No.1045 of 2013(9) dt.04-09-2025 7/10 issue. Besides, the Petitioners have shown photographs to the court indicating visually where exactly the lavatory is. These photographs were shown to the learned Government Advocate, Mr. S.D. Yadav. Clearly, this lavatory is on plot No. 534. It is on the flank's of the road and it is on the road. 14. The claim of the petitioner in para-22 of the writ petition is that the State respondents cannot construct public toilet on the flank of the road and as such, the same be interfered with. 15. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5 after service of copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 25.07.2014. 16. Para-6 of the said counter affidavit records that in the light of integrated development of Small and Medium Towns Programme of the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Government of India, after due approval and with the sole view of providing a close hygienic space for the locals to attend nature’s call, the same is/was being constructed at a vacant government plot. It is a very small construction on a plot Patna High Court CWJC No.1045 of 2013(9) dt.04-09-2025 8/10 measuring 23’ X17.5” over Khesra No.400. Further, it is an agriculture land of the petitioner under cultivation and there is no house constructed over it. 17. As recorded above, the counter affidavit was filed after service of the copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the year 2014 and there is no rebuttal to the said statement made by the State respondents in favour of the decision taken by the Collector, Sheohar wherein it has been clearly recorded that the construction is being made in a vacant State Government plot. 18. So far as the judgment in the case of Binod Prasad Singh & Ors. (supra) is concerned, para-2 of the order clearly shows that in that case, the matter was with regard to the construction of the lavatory on the road. 19. Here, the Collector, Sheohar has clearly recorded that it is being constructed on a vacant government land and the details of the land has also been given not rebutted by the petitioner. The counter affidavit also records that the 1.78 acres of the land of the petitioner which according to him has devolved upon him from the alleged homestead land holder is an agriculture land having no house and it is under cultivation. Whether the transfer of homestead land is in accordance with Patna High Court CWJC No.1045 of 2013(9) dt.04-09-2025 9/10 law or not, that is for the respondents to look into and need no comment from the court. 20. This Court has taken note of the fact that it is not a Public Interest Litigation and there is nothing on record to show that public at large is/are being affected by the construction of lavatory in a vacant government land and on the contrary, it is greatly going to help those moving on the road and for want of a proper lavatory, use the flank of the road which not only makes the street unhygienic, it does not give good sight to those crossing the area specially the females. However, due to the litigation by the petitioner, the lavatory has not been constructed for the last two decades. 21. In the opinion of the Court, if at all the petitioner has any grievance, the remedy lies before a Competent Civil Court and not the writ jurisdiction. 22. A lavatory was to be constructed for the public, on a government land and not on the flank of the road, the Collector, Shehar recorded this fact by rejecting the claim of the petitioner on 28.02.2009, the certified copy was procured on 26.03.2009, the writ petition was filed four years later, the counter-affidavit filed in the year 2014 after the service of copy to the writ petition. It recorded the aforesaid facts, there is no Patna High Court CWJC No.1045 of 2013(9) dt.04-09-2025 10/10 rebuttal to it. Still the submission is that it is being constructed on flank of the road. 23. The petitioner has clearly misused the writ jurisdiction by repeatedly knocking the doors of the Court on wrong plea that a construction is being made on the flank of the road. The writ petition nowhere records that the government cannot construct a lavatory in its own land and as such it needs interference. 24. The writ petition is ill advised, frivolous and with the sole purpose to deny the local citizen of lavatory. It is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited within a period of four weeks from today with the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee. Failure to do so, the same be realized in accordance with law. 25. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Collector, Sheohar for his perusal and needful. Ravi/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U