Justice S. B. Pd. Singh reverses impleadment rejection order by 1st Additional District Judge, Gopalganj, grants limited impleadment

In Lal Babu Giri & Ors. vs. Matuki Giri @ Dharam Nath Giri & Ors. (2026), Justice S. B. Pd. Singh delivered a  5-page long judgement dated April 9, 2026, wherein he concluded that considering the facts of the case "it seems essential that intervenor be impleaded in the appeal to protect his interest with respect to his purchased property but he will be confined to the pleadings and evidence of the vendor only during the course of his argument. 7. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed." The judgement by Justice Singh was uploaded on April 17, 2026.  The judgment was reserved on March 13, 2026.

This civil miscellaneous application was filed for setting aside the order dated May 15, 2019 passed in T.A. No. 35 pf 2000 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Gopalganj whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. for adding the petitioner as respondent in the instant title appeal, was rejected without assigning any reason. The case was filed in the High Court on August 29, 2019 and registered on December 9, 2019.

Respondent-Surendra Tiwari @ Lallan Tiwari had filed Title Suit No. 473 of 1993 against Matuki Giri @ Dharam Nath Giri which was decreed by the Court of Sub-Judge Gopalganj. Against the judgment and decree, the defendant/appellant Matku Giri preferred an appeal i.e. Title Appeal No. 35 of 2000. During the pendency of this appeal petitioner/proposed intervenor purchased the same suit land from the respondent-Surendra Tiwari @ Lallan Tiwari on May 7, 2015, then he filed a petition for his impleadment in the appeal which was rejected by the impugned order that was under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that petitioner was a bona fide purchaser of the suit plot and without the knowledge of this litigation and he had apprehension that respondent namely, Surendra Tiwari @ Lallan Tiwari may leave the pairwi and may gained over by the appellant in future. Therefore, in order to protect his right and interest, it was essential for him to be impleaded in the appeal. 

The counsel for the petitioner relied on Supreme Court's  the case of Yogesh Goyanka vs. Govind and Ors. reported in (2024) 7 Supreme Court Cases 524 in which it held: “20. In the particular facts and circumstances of this case, Mr. Sundaram has been able to satisfy this Court on the possibility of collusion between the Respondents. It is a fact that the Plaintiffs and Defendants are relatives. More importantly, Plaintiffs approached the court in the Underlying Suit after a substantial delay of 11 years whereas admittedly, the revenue records were mutated to reflect the name of Respondent No. 21 since 2007. It is also curious that the claim of non-payment of consideration by the Appellant was made for the first time before this Court. 21. On the other hand, the Appellant has a registered sale deed in his favor and has therefore seemingly acquired an interest in the Subject Land. Whether or not the consideration was paid, is a disputed question of fact that shall be determined by the Trial Court. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, including the fact that the trial has not progressed significantly, the Appellant herein, in the interest of justice, is entitled to impleadment in the Underlying Suit in order to protect his interests, if any, in the Subject Land. 22. In light of the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed. The Impugned Order and the order of the ADJ dated 10.10.2019 are set aside and the Appellant is directed to be added as a party defendant in the Underlying Suit.”

The counsel for the respondent/appellant submitted that petitioner had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the appeal which was hit by the rule of lis pendens and petitioner had derived his right title from the vendor-Surendra Tiwari @ Lallan Tiwari who was still contesting the appeal.

The provision of order XXII Rule 10 of C.P.C. reads: “10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit.–(1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. (2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of sub-rule (1).”

Justice Singh observed that in the light of these facts it is essential that intervenor be impleaded in the appeal to protect his interest with respect to his purchased property but he will be confined to the pleadings and evidence of the vendor only during the course of his argument.

Earlier, Justice Arun Kumar Jha had stayed the judicial proceeding of Title Appeal No. 35 of 2000 pending before the court of 1st Additional District Judge, Gopalganj by his 2-page long order dated April 30, 2024 in Bindeshwari Giri (now deceased) vs. Matuki Giri @ Dharam Nath Giri & Anr. (2024) till the  next date hearing. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted  that the petitioner has purchased the land after the title appeal was dismissed in default though it was subsequently restored. The appellate court had rejected the application on the ground of lis pendens and it was also the fact that petitioner was not the party in the original suit or in the appeal but there was no lis pendens. This was the second order in the case which was filed in August 2019. 

Notably, in subsequent order, the respondent no.2, namely Surendra Tiwari @ Lallan Tiwari, who died on September 19, 2020, during the pendency of this petition, from the records, he was substituted with his legal heirs/representatives. The petitioner was permitted to take necessary steps for substituted service of notice through paper publication in two local daily newspapers, namely ‘Times of India’ and ‘Hindustan’, having its circulation in the area of residence of the respondents within four weeks. After publication, the petitioner will file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record copies of newspaper cuttings.

Justice Jha's order dated July 3, 2025 heard the interlocutory application filed on behalf of the petitioner for substitution of heirs/legal representatives of sole petitioner, Bindeshwari Giri. The counsel appearing on behalf of heirs/legal representatives submits that the sole petitioner died on May 13, 2025 leaving behind his heirs/legal representatives. The interlocutory application as well as submission made on behalf of heirs/legal representatives of the sole petitioner was allowed. The order reads:"4. Let the name of sole petitioner be deleted from the record and be substituted with his heirs/legal representatives..."

The first order was passed by Justice Vikash Jain December 16, 2019, wherein none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was called. 

Dr. Gopal Krishna, a practicing advocate pointed out that Supreme Court's decision in Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, reported in AIR 1958 SC 886 wherein, it held that in a suit relating to property in order that a third party may be impleaded, he/she should have a direct or legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation as distinguished from a commercial interest. Legal interest so interpreted means that the result of the suit would affect the third party legally. In a decision of the Federal Court in United Provinces vs. Mt. Atiqu Begum and others reported in AIR 1941 FC 16 wherein, it was held that a person would be a necessary party if a person ought to have been joined, that is to say, in whose absence no effective decree can be passed at all. The person would be a proper party to be impleaded if his/her presence is necessary for an effectual or complete adjudication and in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the intervener petitioner is necessary party because no effective decree can be passed at all as the intervener petitioner is having right, title and possession over the suit land. The Supreme Court in P.C. Varghese vs. Devaki Amma Balambika Devi and others reported in (2005) 8 SCC 486 stressed the point that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the plaintiff is allowed to claim a decree for possession and/or partition in a suit for specific performance. The High Court in Smt.Baby Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2024 (2) BLJ 763 had allowed the application of the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code and in the case, the petitioner was only claiming her right, title and interest over a portion of the suit land. 
 

Marriage between Manish Kumar and Ruchi Sinha stands dissolved: Supreme Court

In Manish Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar passed a 11-page long order dated April 8, 2026, wherein it recorded that the terms of the settlement have been acknowledged . The complainant-wife (Ruchi Sinha) submitted that she does not want to continue with any of the cases filed, either civil  or criminal, and want divorce by mutual consent since the amount as referred to in the settlement agreement has been received by her. The appellant-Manish Kumar also agreed to by the terms of the settlement and submitted that in view of those terms, all criminal and civil cases pending between the parties may be quashed/disposed of and decree of divorce by mutual consent may be ordered.

The judgement reads: "In view of the above, we are inclined to accept the settlement agreement and to dispose of this criminal appeal and I. A. No. 94649 of 2026 with the following directions: (a) As submitted, the appellant-husband has paid Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs) as agreed to in the settlement agreement, the receipt whereof is acknowledged by the complainant/respondent No.2- wife towards full and final settlement of all her claims including alimony, stridhan, dowry articles, maintenance
(past, present, future). (b) All criminal and civil cases as mentioned in the settlement agreement be treated as quashed/ disposed of and be consigned to the record. (c) Since the criminal proceedings have been quashed, the bail bonds of the appellant shall stand discharged. (d) Accepting the terms of the settlement and as consented to by the parties, on their request, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we grant decree of divorce by mutual consent. Consequently, the marriage between the appellant-husband(Manish Kumar) and respondent No.2-wife (Ruchi Sinha) shall stand dissolved. By an outcome of the dissolution of marriage, the parties are set free to lead their lives separately as per their own will. 8) The settlement agreement be treated as part of this Order."

The appellant had assailed the order dated October 16, 2023 passed by the High Court rejecting his application for grant of anticipatory bail. The appellant had preferred the appeal seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 106 of 2022 dated August 25, 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at Police Station Mahila, Sub-Division Sadar, District Patna, Bihar. Vide order dated August 28, 2025, at the request made by the counsel for the parties, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. In mediation, the parties have settled their differences and disputes amicably and settlement agreement dated February 27, 2026 has been entered into which is received vide communication dated March 10, 2026 from the Mediation Centre. The parties had also filed Interlocutory Application No. 94649 of 2026 seeking dissolution of marriage in view of the said settlement.

The terms of the settlement as decided are as under:

“1. DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE: The Parties have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage. They jointly pray before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent by exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, thereby dissolving the marriage solemnized between them.
ALIMONY / MAINTENANCE (FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT): The Second Party/Husband has agreed to pay a total sum of 4,00,000/-(Rupees four Lakhs Only) to the First Party/Wife as a full and final settlement against all the claims of First Party/Wife, including but not limited to past, present, and future maintenance, alimony, stridhan, dowry articles, and any other claims whatsoever arising out of the matrimonial relationship.

MODE AND TIME OF PAYMENT: The aforesaid amount of 4,00,000/- (Rupees four Lakhs Only) shall be paid by the Second Party/Husband to the First Party/Wife drawn in the name of " RUCHI SINHA" by way of account payee cheque bearing Cheque No. "000024" dated January 27, 2026. The said account payee cheque shall be handed over to the First Party/Wife after she will execute/sign the present agreement. The agreement shall be considered complete and binding upon the parties after the parties shall execute this agreement and the money shall be credited in the bank account of First party/Wife. If the cheque shall be dishonored then the agreement shall become null and void.

WITHDRAWAL/QUASHING OF PENDING LITIGATION: The Parties jointly pray before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to quash the followings things by mutual consent by exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, these are:- (1) to quash the FIR bearing FIR No. 106/2022 registered at Mahila P.S., District-Patna under section 498A /506/34 IPC and u/s 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, (2) to quash the chargesheet u/s 498A, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the Second party/Husband and his three relatives who are named in the FIR namely Kamla Devi Verma (the mother of Second Party/Husband), Poonam Kumari(the elder sister of Second Party/Husband) and Mithlesh Kumar (the husband of elder sister of Second party/Husband), (3) to quash the cognizance order and entire case pending before the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patna who took cognizance u/s 498 A, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition against the Second party/Husband and his above three stated relatives. 

The Parties mutually agree that the case pending before the Hon'ble FAMILY COURTS, Patna Bihar and other courts of India alongwith all cases, complaints, and proceedings (civil and criminal) filed by them against each other and/or their family members and relatives, if any, shall be withdrawn, compounded, or quashed. The Parties undertake to fully cooperate with each other and file necessary joint applications, petitions, and affidavits and make requisite statements before the concerned courts/authorities for the purpose of withdrawing/quashing all the cases.

NO FUTURE CLAIMS OR LITIGATION: The Parties solemnly undertake that upon the complete execution of the terms of this Agreement, they shall have no further claims or demands of any nature whatsoever against each other or their respective family members, relatives, heirs, and assigns, relating, to their marriage. They further undertake not to initiate any civil or criminal proceedings against each other or their family members in the future with respect to this matrimonial alliance.

6. RETURN OF BELONGINGS: The Parties confirm that there are no pending claims against each other regarding any movables. immovables, jewelry, stridhan, dowry articles, or personal belongings, and all such issues have been amicably resolved.

7. MUTUAL UNDERTAKING OF NON-INTERFERENCE: Both Parties undertake not to interfere in
the personal, social or professional life of the other Party in any manner whatsoever. They shall not communicate witheach other through any medium (electronic or otherwise) and shall not make any defamatory or derogatory statements against each other or their families.

8. MUTUAL RELEASE OF LEGAL CLAIMS, LIABILITIES AGAINST EACH OTHER: Both the parties hereby agreed and acknowledged that they shall not, at any point and anywhere, initiate or pursue any legal claim, demand, or action against each other, and that neither shall hold any liability towards the other. Each party shall be free to submit, at their own discretion, the documents pertaining to their divorce or decree before the authority concerned, if any, in order to maintain proper record and to avoid any future complications or misunderstandings among them with respect to this matrimonial alliance.

9. VOLUNTARY AND BINDING AGREEMENT: The parties declare that they have entered into this Settlement Agreement after fully understanding its terms and implications. They confirm that this agreement is the result of then-own free will and consent and is not vitiated by any coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their legal heirs, executors, and assigns.

10. VOLUNTARILY CHANGE THE NAME OF MANISH KUMAR AS HER HUSBAND BY THE FIRST PARTY-The first party/Wife shall change all her documents where she has mentioned her husband name as Manish Kumar like Aadhar card, Voter Id, PAN card, Bank details, ration cards, passports, driving licence, etc.

11. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties and supersedes all prior discussions and agreements. No modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by both Parties.

Can co-traveller of an escort to Ganja carrying truck be denied regular bail?

In Thakur Shanni Pratap Singh @ Shanni vs. The Union of India NCB New Delhi (2026), Dr. Gopal Krishna appeared on April 10, 2026 for the petitioner before Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra to submit that this is the second attempt for regular bail in a case related to recovery of 544 kg of Ganja from a truck. 

This is an application for regular bail in connection with NCB Case No. 14 of 2023 instituted for offence under Sections of the Penal Code and under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Dr Krishna submitted that the petitioner is in custody since November 4, 2023. He has no role in the offence. There was no recovery from the petitioner. The car on which was traveling has been released. He was sitting in the back of the car. He is not the owner of Ganja or the truck. e is not related to the truck in any manner. Nothing incriminating recovered from him. He was arrested on a mere confession of the driver of the car to the police officer. 

Dr. Krishna also pointed out the Petitioner, in stark contrast to the other accused, does not have any identifiable role. There is absence of any independent evidence establishing his active role, and given that he was merely a back-seat passenger unnamed in the original intelligence, there are clearly reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not guilty of the offences charged. The Petitioner has absolutely no criminal antecedent. 

The matter is listed for April 17.

    

Justice Rajiv Roy directs State respondents to file affidavit in a case seeking return of land acquired for unambiguous public purpose as per Agreement between Bihar Government and Rohtas Industries Limited

In Kumar Mirtunjay vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Rajiv Roy heard a writ petition seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents-to-act under the ambit of unambiguous public purpose of the land acquisition law and desist from selling public purpose land and unacquired land for private purpose by selling it to private purpose entities with specific reference to sale of Khesra/Plot no. 723, which was acquired for the unambiguous public purpose of building houses of the company's workers but it was not built contrary to the clause in the Agreement between Bihar Government and M/S Rohtas Industries Limited under the land acquisition law. Dr. Gopal Krishna, the petitioner's counsel has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to fix appropriate rate commensurate with the rate fixed by the State Government known as Circle Rate and upon payment at the same rate the land be directed to be returned to the Khatiyani Raiyat or their legal heirs. The 4-page long order dated April 7, 2026 by Justice Roy reads: "3. Let the State respondents file affidavit in the matter." The matter will come up for listing on June 23, 2026.

The petitioner had prayed for for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to stay the sale proceeding till the claims of the Petitioner is adjudicated by the High Court. The petition prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to hand over the unutilized plots of land to the Khatiyani Raiyat or legal successor on circle rate since the unambiguous public purpose for which the land was acquired by the State, and given to the company in question for utilization remains unutilized and is being sold to private purpose entities, which creates a logical and legal compulsion for the Respondents to return the land in question to the legal heirs of the original owner.  

On an earlier occasion, it is apparent that a co-ordinate bench of the Court which was seized with a matter concerning Plot no. 723 was misled by the Official Liquidator citing an order dated September 6, 2012, stating that petitioner's father, namely, Keshwar Singh along with 27 other petitioners, had come before the High Court in Item No.4, I.A.No. 5326/2012 filed by Nihora Singh & Ors.for similar relief. It is not clear as to whether Keshwar Singh was among the 27 other petitioners.  

The fact remains the writ is not confined to Plot no. 723. It seeks relief  with regard to the unacquired land, acquired, used and unused land situated in Village Rattu Bigha, Mauja. Mathuri, Thana No. 159, Tauji No 5335, Anchal-Dehri, District-Rohtas, Bihar which was acquired by the Government of Bihar for the purpose of welfare of construction of quarters for staff and labour of Rohtas Industries Ltd, Dalmianagar. Land Details: The details of the acquired land are as follows:Khata No. 148: Khesra/Plot Nos.  703, 704, 709, 723, 733, 788, 796, 798, 809, 892, 901, 902 and 903, total area in decimal “746”. Khata No. 149: Khesra/Plot No. 739, 743, 797 and 816 total area decimal “102”. Khata No. 150: Khesra/Plot No. 872 total area decimal “52”

Details of Land Survey (L.S.) Khata No. 148: (i)Plot No. 703: Total 55 decimal of land, out of which 52.75 decimal of land was acquired for Rohtas Industries Limited, but 1.25 decimal of the land was illegitimately sold for Uday Pratap Singh. Register 2 rent is fixed in the name of Rohtas Industries in account number 146, it is shown in my account number 148, which is my land. The remaining 2.25 decimal of land has been taken without acquisition under land acquisition law. (ii)Plot No. 709: Total 55 decimal of land, out of which 38.5 decimal of land was acquired for Rohtas Industries Limited, the remaining 16.5 decimal of land has been taken without acquisition under land acquisition law. (iii)Plot No 733: Total 49 decimal of land, out of which 29 decimal of land was acquired for Rohtas Industries Limited, but Register 2 rent is fixed in the name of Rohtas Industries in only 17 decimals. The remaining 32 decimal of land has been taken without acquisition under land acquisition law. (iv)Plot No 798: Total 124 decimal of land, acquired for Rohtas Industries, but 11.72 decimal of the land was illegitimately sold for Satyendra Narayan Singh. (v)Plot No 809: Total 83 decimal of land, out of which 30 decimals of land was acquired for Rohtas Industries Limited, the remaining 53 decimal of land has been taken without acquisition under land acquisition law. (vi)Plot No 892: Total 63 decimal of land, acquired for Rohtas Industries, but 18.77 decimal of the land was illegitimately sold for Model School, a private school. (vii)Plot No.s 704, 723, 788, 796, 901, 902, 903: My land in these plots-04 decimal in Plot no. 704, 34 decimal in Plot no. 723, 25 decimal in Plot no. 788, 17 decimal in Plot no. 796, 15 decimal in Plot no. 901, 2.15 decimal in Plot no. 902 and 7 decimal in Plot no. 903 was totally acquired for Rohtas Industries Ltd, Dalmianagar. As to the acquired land in Plot no. 723, a notice has been published a “sale notice” on February 4, 2026 In Hindustan newspaper, Patna edition at page no. 3 fixing 20.02.2026 as a date for opening the sealed tender contrary to the clause in the Agreement between Bihar Government and M/S Rohtas Industries Limited. Details of L.S. Khata No. 149: Plot No 739, 743, 797 and 816: My land in these plots-16 decimal in Plot no. 739, 45 decimal in Plot no. 743, 12 decimal in Plot no. 797, and 29 decimal in Plot no. 816 was totally acquired for Rohtas Industries Ltd, Dalmianagar. Details of L.S. Khata No. 150, Plot No 872: Total 52 decimal of my land was totally acquired for Rohtas Industries Ltd, Dalmianagar.  

Justice Sandeep Kumar sets aside orders by Collectors of Rohtas, Bhojpur, directs them to pass speaking order after considering fresh sand replenishment study reports

In Bimal Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum-Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a 29-page long judgement dated April 16, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"....the  impugned orders contained in memo no.758 dated 11.05.2024 passed by the Collector, Rohtas and memo no.1919 dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collectors of Bhojpur and Rohtas districts for passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after considering the fresh replenishment study reports, which would be conducted in compliance of the aforesaid directions, for the respective sand ghats. 47. The writ petitions are allowed to the above extent." Both the cases demonstrate the poor environmental health of the Sone river in Bhojpur and Rohtas. 

Justice Kumar relied on High Court's decision in Manjeet Chawla vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported as 2026 SCC OnLine Pat 535 has already held that replenishment study is sine qua non for sand mining projects.

Justice Kumar observed: "43. The mining over river beds cannot be permitted contrary to the replenishment rate of sand and that a replenishment study must be undertaken since it forms the very basis on which the quantity of permissible mining is determined and subsequently the environmental clearance is granted. This Court has noted that under Clause-5 of the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, the need for replenishment study is paramount in order to nullify the adverse impact arising due to excessive and aggressive sand extraction. Thus, the replenishment study is not merely to ascertain the permissible quantity of sand for extraction but also is necessary to minimize the adverse impact therefrom and strike a balance between sand extraction / mining and preservation of riparian habitat. 44. It is equally settled that the State holds all natural resources including the minerals as a trustee of the public and must deal with them in a manner consistent with the nature of such a trust. What is clearly crystallized, therefore, is that the annual extractable quantity must be less than the annual replenishment rate in order to align strictly with sustainable mining practices."

The judgement reads:"45. For the foregoing reasons, in order to strike a fair balance and keeping in view the sustainable mining practice, this Court deems it appropriate and in the interest of justice to direct the concerned respondent authorities to conduct a fresh replenishment study for the Rohtas Sand Ghat No.13 and Bhojpur Sand Ghat No. 01 by a competent authority / institution to ascertain the present and true quantity of sand available in the sand ghats and its replenishment rate, which have been allotted to the petitioners. The aforesaid exercise must be completed within eight weeks from today. The cost of the aforesaid replenishment studies shall be borne by the petitioners themselves.

The four other respondents were:Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram and Mineral Development Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram. The case was heard along with Nagendra Kumar vs. State of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum-Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar & Ors. The four other respondents were: Principal Secretary, Cum Commissioner Mines, Department of Bihar, Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Bhojpur and Mineral Development Officer, Bhojpur. 

The petitioners had challenged the orders passed by the respective District Magistrate-cum-Collector, by which the security deposit of the petitioners for settlement of sand ghats have been forfeited under Rule 28(1) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 and the in-principal work orders have been revoked on the ground that the petitioners have not deposited their respective first installment of the royalty.

Notably, in-principle work orders were issued in favour of the petitioners by the concerned authorities and both the petitioners submitted the required mining plans, which were approved by the competent authority.
After approval of the Mining Plans, both petitioners approached the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for issuance of Terms of Reference and further environmental clearance, which were granted to them. 

The petitioners had submitted that since the mineral potential of the sand ghats had reduced considerably
considering the fact that there was no replenishment of sand during the monsoon season of the year 2023, the petitioners were reluctant to commence mining operations at their respective sand ghats, as according to the petitioners, the same would have caused heavy financial losses to the petitioners. After the monsoon season of 2023, there was no sufficient replenishment of sand, resulting in substantial reduction in the mineral potential of the respective sand ghats. Further, no replenishment study was conducted after the monsoon season of 2023, although such exercise is mandatory under the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM, 2020), particularly for assessing actual replenishment and sustainable extraction. 

The petitioner - Nagendra Kumar, upon learning about the reduced availability of sand, addressed a representation dated September 22, 2023 to the Member Secretary, SEAC, requesting that the environmental clearance be granted only after physical verification of the sand ghat but despite the aforesaid representation, the environmental clearance was granted to the petitioners without proper consideration of the issue of non-replenishment and reduced mineral potential.

The petitioners submitted that at the time of participating in the auction, they had inspected the respective
sand ghats and found sufficient sand availability but the depletion in mineral potential occurred only thereafter, during the period which was consumed in obtaining approvals and clearances and such depletion may have occurred due to lack of replenishment during monsoon and/or illegal or excessive mining by prior operators or third parties. It was the case of the petitioners that they, under pressure, from the mining authorities proceeded further and applied for Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from Bihar State Pollution Control Board. The petitioners did not commence mining operations even after obtaining necessary permissions since their consistent stand was that the actual mineral potential had been seriously reduced due to absence of post-monsoon replenishment. Further, the petitioners received several letters from the respondent authorities for making the payment of first installment in lieu of mining lease granted in their favour but they did not pay the required payment and ultimately, vide impugned orders the security deposits of the petitioners have been forfeited by the respondents under Rule 28(1) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 on the ground that the petitioners did not deposit the first installment of royalty and had not commenced operation of the sand ghats.

The petitioners submitted that the impugned orders forfeiting the security deposits of the petitioners were illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law in view of the fact that there had been no adequate replenishment of sand after monsoon 2023 and no fresh replenishment study of the respective sand ghats had been conducted in terms of the guidelines of the E.M.G.S.M., 2020. He further submits that the actual mineral potential of the respective sand ghats had materially reduced after the auction and before the petitioners could even commence the operation of mining on the sand ghats. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had already undertaken all required compliance and were not responsible for the depletion of the availability of sand in the sand ghats.The petitioners were proceeded against merely on the allegation that they did not deposit the first installment of royalty/settlement amount and did not commence operation of the respective sand ghats. On this ground alone, the respondents invoked Rule 28(1) of the 2019 Rules, along with certain clauses of the tender document, and proceeded to forfeit the security deposits of the petitioners.

It was also submitted that Rule 28(1) of the 2019 Rules will not apply in the present case since the said provision forms part of Chapter IV of the Rules, which governs the procedure for grant of mining lease ‘except sand’. Sand settlement, on the other hand, is specifically governed by Chapter V, namely Rules 29A to 30, which constitutes a distinct and self-contained Code in relation to the settlement, operation and obligations pertaining to sand ghats. Once the Rules themselves maintain this legislative distinction, the respondents could not have lawfully borrowed Rule 28(1) from a different chapter and applied it to sand settlees.The action of the respondents in forfeiting the security deposits of the petitioners cannot be justified unless there exists a clear and specific statutory authority. Further, the respondents could not have compelled the petitioners to proceed with the settlement and commence mining operations without first resolving the foundational issue of actual mineral availability in the concerned sand ghats. It is the contention of the petitioners that the actual mineral potential of the respective sand ghats materially changed after the auction and before the commencement of operation, and yet the respondents proceeded
as though the originally assumed reserve of sand remained intact. It is argued that such conduct is arbitrary and reflects complete non-application of mind and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that no post-monsoonal replenishment study for the year 2023 was conducted in respect of the concerned sand ghats, though such study is integral to the sustainable sand mining practice. The EMGSM, 2020 expressly recognises replenishment assessment as an essential component of sustainable sand mining. The purpose of such study is to ascertain the quantity replenished after monsoon, determine actual mineable quantity, prevent ecological over-exploitation, and regulate extraction on a scientific basis. In the absence of such a study, the respondents could not have lawfully presumed that the original mineral potential remained unchanged.

It was submitted that the petitioners had specifically requested the authority that environmental clearance be granted only after physical verification of the sand ghats since the mineral availability had materially reduced, which clearly shows that the issue of non-availability of sand in the sand ghats has been raised at the initial stage. It was also submitted that though the petitioner - Bimal Kumar could not furnish separate detailed replies to each departmental communications during the relevant period, as he was unwell, such circumstance cannot defeat the petitioners’ substantive case.

The petitioners relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. Union of India, reported as (2015) 7 SCC 728, to contend that judicial review remains available where State action in the contractual field is arbitrary, unfair, unsupported by law, or violative of public law
obligations.

It was argued that a replenishment study conducted in the year 2022 cannot conclusively determine the actual mineral availability after subsequent extraction. A full monsoon cycle and the admitted absence of any updated replenishment study for the year 2023 also cast doubt on the earlier replenishment study conducted in the year 2022. It was also argued that once the petitioners raised grievance regarding non-availability of sand, the respondent authorities ought to have conducted a replenishment study to ascertain the actual availability of sand and its replenishment rate.

Justice Kumar observed:"....it is required to be noted that it is settled that the mining activities cannot be permitted beyond the annual replenishment rate since that would endanger the environment and if the geological processes that naturally replenish the availability of sand cannot match the rate at which the mining occurs then over the period of time aggressive and continued mining activity would result in long term environmental damage. Therefore, sustainable development is sine qua non to strike a balance between developmental activities and the conservation of environment."

The Court's order is pro-environment but it missed the opportunity of directing all the Collectors to ensure sand replenishment study of all the ghats in the State.    

Justice Sourendra Pandey directs the State to examine representation on release of petitioner’s land, declared surplus land in Ceiling Case of 1973-1974 without any notice

In Rajendra Mandal @ Rejendra Mandar S/o Late Nanulal Mandal @ Late Nanu Mandar vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Revenue, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Sourendra Pandey of Patna High Court delivered a 4-page long judgment dated April 15, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and taking into account the earlier order passed by this Court in aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 14493 of 2002 & analogous cases, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation before the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Darbhanga (respondent No. 3), detailing his grievances, within a period of four weeks from today, who, on receipt of such representation, after taking into account the fact that the petitioner had purchased the property way-back in the year 1977 from the land-holder whose land has subsequently been declared to be surplus and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the original land-holder/legal heirs or legal representatives of the land in question apart from the other relevant parties including the petitioner, shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a further period of four months of the receipt of such representation.7. If the claim of the petitioner is found to be tenable, necessary sequel order shall also be passed by the concerned respondent/authority within the aforesaid period. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of."

The four other respondents were: District Magistrate cum Collector, Darbhanga, Additional Collector Ceiling, Darbhanga, Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Darbhanga and Circle Officer, Biraul, Darbhanga.

The writ application was  filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the petitioner’s land, which has been declared surplus land by Ceiling Case No. 69 of 1973-1974 illegally without any notice upon him and without proper enquiry under Section 5(i) (ii) by avoiding Section 9(2) of the Ceiling Act.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that his grievances shall be redressed if the present writ application be disposed of with a direction to the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Darbhanga (respondent No. 3) in terms of the order passed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14493 of 2002 and analogous cases, disposed of on April 21, 2005. He submitted that he is then purchaser of the land in question, which was  declared to be surplus by the authorities concerned. It was submitted that the case of the petitioner was exactly similar to the case of one Yamun Mandal & Ors., which was also the subject matter in the batch of writ petitions, i.e., C.W.J.C. Nos. 768 of 2003.

The standing counsel submitted that the petitioner, being the purchaser, cannot be given the opportunity of being heard at such a belated stage and passage of time upon the disposal of the writ application. It was submitted that the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Darbhanga (respondent No. 3) can look into the matter, if the original land-holder from whom the petitioner purchased the said land is heard before passing any order.

Trial Courts "shall record the offer made to the accused" of their right to legal representation, their entitlement to be represented by legal aid counsel if they cannot afford counsel

Patna High Court's Registrar General issued a circular order no. 01/2026 dated April 15, 2026 on the subject of 5-page long order dated February 5, 2026 passed by the Supreme Court's Division Bench Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran in Reginamary Chellamani vs. State Rep by Superintendent of Customs) SLP (Crl.) No. 18886/2025. 

The Court observed as follows: "It is incumbent upon the trial Courts dealing with criminal proceedings, faced with such situations, to inform the accused of their right to legal representation and their entitlement to be represented by legal aid counsel in the event they cannot afford a counsel. The trial Courts shall record the offer made to the accused in this regard, the response of the accused to such offer and also the action taken thereupon in their orders, before commencing examination of the witnesses. This procedure requires to be adopted and put in practice scrupulously. This order shall be communicated to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to enable suitable instructions being issued in this regard to all the concerned trial Courts within the State." The case arose from the order dated July 24, 2025 by Justice M. Nirmal Kumar of Madras High Court. 

The circular reads: "In order to ensure uniform compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court, the following instructions, the High Court has issued for strict adherence by all criminal courts in the State: 
1. Informing the Accused of Right to Counsel: Before the commencement of examination of witnesses, the trial court shall inform the accused clearly and specifically that: 

(a) He/ She has a right to be represented by an advocate of his/ her choice, and
(b) If the accused cannot afford to engage a private counsel, he/she is entitled to free legal aid through Legal Services Authorities.
2. Offer of Legal Aid: Where the accused states that he/ she does not have legal representation or is unable to engage counsel, the court shall:
(a) Inform the accused of the availability of free legal aid, and
(b) Take necessary steps to provide legal aid counsel through the concerned District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) without delay.
3. Recording in Order Sheet: (i) The Presiding Officer shall specifically record in the order sheet:
(a) That the offer of legal representation/ legal aid was made to the accused.
(b) The response of the accused to such offer.
(c) The action taken by the court in consequence of such response.
(ii) The learned Trial Court, while recording the offer to provide legal representation to the accused shall also take the signature/ LTI of the accused in the margin of the order-sheet.
4. Condition Precedent for Witness Examination: The examination of prosecution witnesses shall not ordinarily commence unless:
(a) The above procedure has been followed, and
(b) The same has been duly recorded in the order sheet.
5. Strict Compliance: All trial courts shall scrupulously follow the above procedure in every criminal trial to safeguard the right to fair trial and effective legal representation. 

The Principal District and Sessions Judges shall circulate these instructions to all criminal courts under their jurisdiction, and ensure strict compliance with directions contained herein."

Notably, the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, was aggrieved by the denial of regular bail by the Madras High Court in relation to the order of the Principal Special Judge under EC and NDPS Act Cases for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Supreme Court had observed:"We, however, find that the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, has been in custody for 4 years 1 month and 28 days as on date. Given the length of incarceration that the appellant has already suffered and as an identically situated accused person, who was travelling along with the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, on the same flight, has been granted bail by this Court, we are inclined to grant the same relief to the appellant at this stage. The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 24.07.2025. The appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, is directed to be released on bail in connection with the aforestated NDPS case, on stringent terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial Court."

The Supreme Court's order reads: "We may also note at this stage that the appellant did not cross examine the witnesses at the initial stage and it was only after she engaged her own counsel and her application for re-examining those witnesses was allowed that she was permitted to do so."