Suryadeo Prasad vs State of Bihar and Others

Narayan Roy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and JC to GP I for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction upon respondent No. 2, the State Advisory Committee to make necessary correction in the report dated 27/28.2.2003 showing his name in the allocation list to the State of Bihar instead of the State of Jharkhand.

In this regard, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the list prepared by the Chairman, State Advisory Committee, as contained in annexure-1, and states that the petitioner had opted for the State of Jharkhand and the like recommendation was made, but now he has been allocated to the State of Bihar.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner for redressal of his grievances has made a representation before respondent No. 2, State Advisory Committee, as contained in annexure 7, but the same has not yet been considered and disposed of.

It is stated by learned counsel for the State that for some time, the committee was functioning without the Chairman and now the chairman has been appointed to head the Committee and the representation filed by the petitioner would be considered and disposed of by the Chairman of the State Advisory Committee.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, as contained in annexure 7, in terms of Section 75 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000, in accordance with law.

With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.