SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4119

PATNA HIGH COURT
Purnendu Singh, J
Jeetendra Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12566 of 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Sumit Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anjani kumar, (AAG4)

The court allows the petitioner to approach appropriate authority for grievances related to delays in processing applications, emphasizing oversight duties of administrative bodies.

Headnote:This case concerns a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a mandamus for the consideration of applications dated 06.02.2017 and 16.09.2017 regarding an order dated 12.01.2007, which was not duly entertained. The court found that the petitioner could approach the appropriate authority given the developments during the writ's pendency. The District Magistrate was instructed to ensure proper function monitoring. The application is disposed of.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks consideration of delayed applications. (Para 3)
2. court addresses administrative responsibilities regarding processing applications. (Para 4 , 5)
3. application disposed of with instructions. (Para 6)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

3 31-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, the following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

“1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of writ nature of mandamus to direction respondent consider in the application of the petitioner filed on 06.02.2017 and 16.09.2017, same is still pending for due consideration and further issue direction to the respondents District Magistrate to consider the application and disposed of by the speaking order and further give other legal consequential benefit to the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted the the petitioner seeks to avail remedy against order dated 12.01.2007 and he has already filed representation for the same on 06.02.2017 and 16.09.2017 but the same has not been entertain till date and the required information has already been brought on record by way of Annexure 2 and 5 respectively.

4. Considering the aforesaid submission and the relief(s) as sought for in the present writ petition the petitioner having aggrieved by the order dated 12.01.2007 may avail remedy before the appropriate authority on the basis of development which has taken place during the pendency of the writ petition in accordance with law.

5. The District Magistrate – cum – Collector must also ensure that he keep himself vigilant in respect of the functioning of the circle office. In the present case the name is required to be verified of those Circle Officers of East Champaran, who were holding the post during the period the order was passed and such communication is required to be made to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, as well as, the General Administration Department for taking appropriate action for harassing the poor citizen and forcing him to file the present writ petition.

6. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top