Supreme Court reverses Justice Dr. Anshuman's bail rejection order in a NDPS case

In Satyam Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Joymalya Bagchi passed a 2-page long order dated August 28, 2025. The order reads: "Considering that the petitioners are in jail since 03.03.2021 i.e. for nearly four and a half year, we are of the view that the petitioners deserve to be released on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail subject to such conditions and restrictions as imposed by the jurisdictional Trial Court."

Earlier, Dr. Anshuman of Patna High Court had passed a 4-page long order dated February 2, 2025 in Satyam Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2025). The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking regular bail in connection with a P.S. case  of 2021 lodged under Sections 8, 21, 22(B)(C) N.D.P.S. Act. The counsel for the petitioners of first two cases i.e.,. Cr. Misc. No.72426 of 2024 and Cr. Misc. No.71160 of 2024 had submitted that the bail application of the petitioners has earlier been rejected twice vide order dated 27.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No.49865 of 2021 and vide order dated March 20, 2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.79114 of 2023. He also further submitted that the petitioners were innocent and other named co-accused persons were granted bail on the basis of same allegation. The petitioners were apprehended from the place of occurrence. He further submitted that petitioners were in custody since March 3, 2021 had clean antecedent. The counsel for the petitioner for third case i.e.,Cr. Misc. No.79563 of 2024 submitted that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R., but he was not apprehended from the place of occurrence nor any material was recovered from his possession. The Senior Counsel submitted that the name of petitioner had come by virtue of confessional statement of co-accused who were apprehended from the place of occurrence. It stated that the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had granted bail to other co-accused persons, who were not apprehended nor any recovery has been made from their possession. He also submitted that petitioner was in custody since August 28, 2024 had clean antecedent.

Justice Anshuman observed:"11. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, namely, Satyam Kumar Singh and Amit Kumar@ Jaikar of first two cases. Therefore, the bail applications of the petitioners are hereby rejected." This order has been reversed by the Supreme Court. 

Justice Dr. Anshuman had heard the case of Satyam Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2025) along with the case Amit Kumar @ Jaikar vs. The State of Bihar (2025) and Anant Sah @ Anant Kumar @ Anant Kumar Sah vs. The State of Bihar (2025). In his order, Justice Anshuman added: "the bail application of the petitioner, namely, Anant Sah of third case is concerned, let the petitioner be granted bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each....". It was required to be furnished to Additional Sessions Judge-IV-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act., Purnea in connection with Supplementary N.D.P.S. Case of 2021(CIS No.121 of 2024) which arose out of P.S. case  of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. 

Justice Bajanthri led bench directs both parties to peruse latest Supreme Court decisions on permanent alimony

In Nisha @ Nisha Om Prakash Yadav vs. Manish Sinha (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices P. B. Bajanthri and Shailendra Singh passed a 2-page long order dated August 25, 2025 The Appellant-Nisha @Nisha Om Prakash Yadav gave a proposal of permanent alimony for a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh) and the residential premises (Flat No. A-603, Suresh Smruti, Prathamesh Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai- 400053, Maharashtra) where she and her son are living, should be transferred in the name of her son. In this regard, Respondent - Manish Sinha, was directed to submit his stand in writing insofar as furnishing counter proposal, if any. 

Justice Bajanthri observed:"In order to give quietus to the litigation among the respective parties, both the parties are educated, therefore, they are requested to peruse the latest Supreme Court decisions in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 read with Aditi alias Mithi vs. Jitesh Sharma reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 1451 read with Pravin Kumar Jain vs. Anju Jain reported in 2024 SCC OnLine 3678 (in Para 32) it relates to eight factors which are required to be determined for the purpose of determination of permanent alimony. Both the parties are requested to peruse the eight factors and determine tentatively and draw an inference what would be the permanent alimony other than the proposal of permanent alimony offered by the Appellant-Nisha @ Nisha Om Prakash Yadav and apprise." The matter is listed for further hearing on September 22, 2025.

Justice Bajanthri led bench gave similar 2-page long order dated August 25, 2025 in Manisha Kumari vs. Harendra Tiwary (2025). 

Disputed issues cannot be adjudicated under Article 226: Patna High Court

In Pushpa Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices P. B. Bajanthri and Shailendra Singh passed a 3-page long order dated August 27, 2025 upholding the order by Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh.  

The appellants had assailed the 2-page long order dated April 17, 2019 by Justice Singh, the Single Judge passed in Pushpa Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2019). The order stated that the petitioners "purchased certain property from Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No. 5, after having sold the property, is not handing over the possession. Such grievance of the petitioners, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be entertained. This application is dismissed. The petitioners may approach appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance.” The Respondent No. 5 is Shanti Devi, a resident of Sikariya, Shivsagar, Rohtas. The petitioners, namely, Pushpa Devi, Sunita Devi, Vijapatti Devi, Bali Ram Singh and Sarita Devi. The case was filed in the High Court on March 1, 2019 and registered on April 16, 2019. 

Justice Bajanthri observed: "it is evident that there was certain disputed issues among the appellants and contesting respondents, insofar as transaction of property. 4. Disputed issues cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shubhas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam and Others reported in (2021) 20 SCC 454. In the light of these facts and circumstances no interference is warranted in respect of order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.04.2019 passed in CWJC No. 8225 of 2019. 5. Accordingly, present LPA No. 1096 of 2019 stands disposed of reserving liberty to the appellants to invoke appropriate remedy before appropriate forum. In the event of filing of appropriate litigation before the concerned jurisdictional forum, jurisdictional forum is requested to peruse Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and proceed to condone the delay in respect of time spent before this Court." He endorsed the order by Justice Singh. 

 

Vaishali Police directed to release vehicle because petitioner's role under offences of Excise Act is not forthcoming: Justice P. B. Bajanthri

In Pradyumn Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principle Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices P. B. Bajanthri and Shailendra Singh passed a 2-apge long order which reads: "Therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali is hereby directed the release the subject matter of vehicle within a period of two days" because prima facie petitioner's role under the offences of Excise Act is not forthcoming. The subject matter of vehicle was under the custody of the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali and he was not arrayed as necessary and proper party. 

Justice Bajanthri observed: "Be that as it may, in all certainty the Superintendent of Police, Saran should have communicated the orders of this Court dated 12.08.2025 insofar as releasing the subject matter of vehicle on the admitted fact that the subject matter of vehicle was involved for the offences under theft read with the vehicle was involved for the offences under Excise Act on misuse of the vehicle by some miscreants...."

In his earlier 1-page long order dated August 12, 2025, Justice Bajanthri observed:"The Superintendent of Police, Saran, is hereby directed to verify whether the subject matter of the vehicle was seized in connection with the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for theft of vehicle) followed by theft vehicle was involved for the offences under the Excise Act and F.I.R. Registered on 24.12.2024. If these facts are genuine, in that event, the Superintendent of Police, Saran, is hereby directed to release the subject matter of vehicle in favour of the petitioner after due verification of records of the vehicle within a period of one week from today." The petition was filed in the High Court on July 17, 2025 and registered on July 31, 2025. 

Patna High Court refused to interfere with Cabinet resolution, Planning department's order in Accredited Statistical Volunteers case

In Shambhu Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary & Ors. (2017), Justice Jyoti Saran passed in a 717-page long judgement dated January 24, 2017, wherein, he concluded: "I am not persuaded to either interfere with the Cabinet resolution or with the order of the Planning department issued thereunder, a copy of which has been  placed on record vide Annexure C‘ to the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No.11550 of 2016 but with a rider that in case the State would be in need of the services of the Accredited Statistical Volunteers then the claim of these petitioners may be considered for such engagement considering the experience gained and the training undergone by these petitioners over the period of time and even if the State would decide to look for fresh aspirants, due weightage be given to the case of these petitioners including age relaxation. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of."  

The Shambhu Kumar case was heard along with 73 + 200 + 5+ 15 + 7 + 8 + 7+ 11+ 5+ 37 + 200 + 58 + 200 + 200+ 200 + 27 + 434 + 341 + 253+ 316 + 464 + 350 + 64 + 52 + 200 + 6+ 21+ 200 + 24 + 3 + 15 + 21 + 6 + 13 + 9 + 57 + 353 + 10 + 309 +  228 + 25 + 299 + 11 + 242 + 100 + 88 + 92 + 15 + 58 + 18 + 200 + 201 + 16 + 23 + 302 + 101 + 144 + 60 + 58 + 93 + 79 + 128 + 82 + 4 + 201 + 60 + 22 + 90 + 49 + 200 + 200 + 24 + 54 + 44 + 59 + 61 + 44 + 23 + 1 + 134 + 100 + 18 + 4 + 15 + 87 + 31 +6 + 5 + 7 + 8 + 101 + 7 + 62 + 45 + 152 + 200 + 31 + 101 + 23 + 28 + 125 + 94 + 166 + 12 + 24 + 119 + 82 + 13 + 57 + 32 + 22 + 20 + 4 + 5 + 39 + 7 + 5 + 12 + 9 + 12+ 33 + 4 + 89 + 6 + 7 + 5 + 56 + 30 + 300 + 100 + 5 + 4 + 193 + 27 + 7 + 24 + 46 + 34 + 56 + 111 + 48 + 55 + 29 + 1 + 6 + 29 +15 + 6 + 93 + 1 + 31 + 31 + 1 + 24 + 45 + 8 + 5 + 1 = 1 + 65 +  20 + 22 + 24 + 226 + 114 + 4 + 16 + 92 + 11 + 78 + 37 + 20 + 3 + 20 + 4 + 5 + 8 + 5 + 1 + 5 + 24 + 16 + 5 + 18 + 23 + 10 + 5 + 32+ 2 + 55 + 109 + 5 + 162 + 125 + 350 petitioners.  The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions had questioned the decision taken in the meeting of the Cabinet held on June 7, 2016 in so far as it approved the Agenda No.4 relatable to cancellation of the panel of the Accredited Statistical Volunteers (ASV) prepared following the advertisement published under the authority of the Planning and Development Department of the Government of Bihar in its Directorate of Economics and Statistics dated February 12, 2012. The Cabinet decision so taken was translated in the notification of the State Government bearing Memo No.1459 dated 26.7.2016, whereby the panel of the ASVs‘ has been cancelled with immediate effect.

Since each of the writ petition was for the same cause of action and since it was the same Cabinet decision and the order of the State Government which was put to challenge in each of the writ petitions, hence with the consent of the parties, the matters was heard analogous with the purpose of final disposal. 

 

There was an admitted empanelment of more than 60,000 ASVs‘ across the State but the work requirement shows that whereas 1604 ASVs‘ were engaged for 20 days in the year 2012, 6171 ASVs‘ were engaged for 50 days in the year 2013 and 7198 ASVs‘ were engaged in 2014 for 50 days. Following
the second advertisement under the 6th Economic Census, of the 61506 candidates engaged, only 42961 worked for 30 days in the census work in the year 2013 that 468 ASVs‘ were engaged for 15 days in 2014. The details so given are not contested and which by itself reflects the nature of engagement of these ASVs‘. In the nature of engagement of the ASVs‘, the issue was whether the petitioners had a right, either for continuity of the panel or for regularisation. Justice Saran observed: "In my opinion, the issue has to be answered in the negative. The petitioners have not been appointed against any sanctioned post nor they have been paid any salary for their engagement and the engagement during this period of three years at best makes it to 50 days in a year. The petitioners also cannot insist on maintaining the panel or its continuity for it would strike at the root of Article 14 of the Constitution of India depriving the others who may have become eligible for consideration."  He added: "The legal position is well settled and a mere empanelment gives no right to the incumbent to seek permanency against the post. The case of the petitioners is on even worse pedestal because they have not been appointed against any post rather they have simply been empanelled for discharging certain work as per the requirement. Regularisation is a concept attached to a post existing within a cadre and the foundation rests on a continuity of engagement. In the present case neither the engagement has been made against any post nor is it against a salary nor there is a continuity of work. All the three pre-requisites to a plea for regularisation is manifestly absent in the present case. May be, the empanelment of the petitioners as ASVs‘, provided them with some kind of status but it did not invest them with any right for seeking creation of a post of the like or for seeking permanency on any other vacancy available in the department. The other issue of arbitrariness raised by the petitioners for questioning the policy decision of the State to scrap the panel, even though attractive on the proposition advanced but does not stand the test calling for any intervention."

 

The petitioner's counsel had submitted that even if the nature of engagement was contractual, yet its termination was required to be supported with reasons and cannot be done in a whimsical and arbitrary manner. He made reference to the following judgments in support of his submissions:
(1) (2008) 1 SCC 448 (Director SCTI for Medical Science and Technology vs. M. Pushkaran). With reference to the opinion present at paragraphs 12 to 18, the counsel submitted that once a panel has been prepared it cannot be ignored nor can be cancelled on whimsical decision and in absence of good reasons.
(2) (2013) 14 SCC 65 (Nihal Singh vs. State of Punjab). With reference to paragraphs 32 to 36 of the judgment it was submitted that while it is undisputed that it is the sovereign function of every Government to create public posts but an exception is present at paragraph 33 of the judgment where the Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts to examine any such decision is not barred.
(3) 2012 (1) PLJR (SC) 321 (GRIDCO Limited vs. Sri Sadanand Doloi). The counselreferred to the facts of the case discussed in paragraph 3 of the judgment to submit that an issue as regarding the scope of judicial review of contractual appointment came in for consideration before the Supreme Court and it was held at paragraph 26 of the judgment that a Writ Court is fully entitled to a judicial review of such actions if it was founded on illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness and irrationality.
(4) (2008) 14 SCC 58 (Ramesh Chandra Sankla vs. Vikram Cement). The counsel referred to paragraph 90 to 98 of the judgment to impress upon the Court as regarding the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the larger interest of justice.
(5) 2014 (1) PLJR (SC) 321 (State of Jharkhand vs. Harihar Yadav). The counsel referred to paragraphs 14 and 22 to 24 of the judgment to submit that in the present context an issue of social justice also becomes a relevant factor for assessment of the relative rights and which is also a factor in course of administration of justice. 

(6) (2009) 8 SCC 556 (Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana). On the opinion expressed in paragraphs 11, 39 and 44 to 48, the counsel submitted that the issue of unfair labour practices was examined by the Supreme Court and while taking note of the opinion earlier expressed in the case of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs. Workmen since reported in (2007) 1 SCC 408, the concept of need-based employment has been approved. He submits that the issue of employment and the objections as to the contractual nature of appointment have been taken note of and rejected and the opinion of the Labour Court to grant relief to the Workmen in the background that their
services were yet required, stood confirmed.
(7) (2007) 1 SCC 408 (Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen). The counsel submitted with reference to paragraph 4 and paragraphs 32 to 40 that while there is no dispute on the legal position that the Courts would not exercise its discretion which would result in creation of posts or in causing financial burden on the exchequer, he submits that the case of the petitioners is distinguishable because whereas in the present case these petitioners have been empanelled after undergoing a selection process, on the other hand there is yet work available for being discharged by these petitioners. He submits that the case of the petitioners is not a case of backdoor appointment.
(8) (2013) 16 SCC (Mahipal Singh Tomar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh). With reference to paragraphs 37 to 41 of the judgment, the counsel submitted that in the present case the Cabinet decision has been taken without any opportunity to the petitioners to defend themselves and which decision of the State Government is in gross violation of the principles of Natural Justice.

 

The counsel submitted that there was no foundation for a decision to cancel the panel and once the Cabinet has taken a decision for regularisation, then the authorities are precluded from interference with the panel on the principles of promissory estoppel. The counsel in support referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1986 BLJR 408 (SC) (S.N. Yadav Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board) more particularly paragraphs 3, 4 and 7.  

 

Drawing on Supreme Court's decision in paragraphs 13 and 17 AIR 1991 SC 537 (Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P.), he submitted that while considering a similar decision regarding cancellation of panel of Law Officers, it was held that such decision taken must accompany reasons, even if it is not communicated. It is the submission of learned counsel that a decision which was not founded on reasons was held to be arbitrary. 

He also drew on Supreme Court's decision in Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India to submit that orders determining inter-party rights has to be backed by reasons. According to counsel, even a policy decision cannot be taken on whims and any such decision is liable to be struck down. Learned counsel in support of such proposition has made reference to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1985 SC 1147 (Ram & Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana). It was the argument of the counsel that a reason not reflecting in the decision, cannot be supplemented by affidavits. In support of his submission, he referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1978 SC 851: (1978)1 SCS 405 (Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi).

The counsel also made reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (1995) 3 SCC 401 (Union of India vs. Dinesh Kumar Saxena) and (1995)5 SCC 219 (Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Vikram Chaudhary) to submit that the issues raised, requires a remand for a fresh consideration by the State on the issue of regularisation.

The counsel referred to a Division Bench judgment of the High Court reported in 1996(2) PLJR 394 (The Bihar State Adult and Non-formal Educational Employees Association vs. The State of Bihar) and in reference to the facts discussed in paragraph 7 and the conclusion at paragraph 33 he submitted that the Division Bench taking note of a similar situation issued direction for regularisation of the Teachers engaged on casual basis under the scheme of Adult Education. The counsel also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2015(2) PLJR (SC) 437 (Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar), to support the claim of regularisation advanced by the petitioners.

The issue which the High Court considered in the backdrop of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties was: 
(a) Whether the petitioners have a right to the continuity of panel;
(b) Whether they have a right to claim regularisation against a Government post;
(c) Whether the decision of the Cabinet to scrap the panel is arbitrary; and
(d) Whether the petitioners were entitled to a hearing.
The length of the argument advanced by counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners basically was equity-based. 

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 268 Babita Prasad vs. State of Bihar) for an answer to the plea of the petitioners regarding continuity of panel. It is also an answer to the prayer of regularisation and which runs as follows:"―26. The mere fact that the candidates who had been brought on the panel had been sent for training at the Government expense, would also not imply that any indefeasible right had been created in their favour for appointment after they had completed their training and their names were entered in the panel because the training was merely intended to confer eligibility on the candidates for being brought on the list. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, hold that the panel prepared in the present case was only in the nature of an eligibility list of qualified trained teachers arranged according to their merit in a chronological order. It had been prepared without any process of selection whatsoever as none who was a trained qualified teacher was excluded from being brought on the list. The list was neither related to existing vacancies nor to anticipated vacancies. Such a panel did not create any vested or indefeasible right on the empanelists to be appointed." 

In the Liberty Oil Mills vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1984 SC 1271, it was held that the expression "without assigning any reasons" implied that no decision was communicated and although the reasons for a decision taken may not be stated but the reasons must exist otherwise a decision becomes arbitrary. It was clarified that "non-assigning of reasons" or "non-communication thereof" may be based on public policy but a termination of appointment without existence of a cogent reason, would be arbitrary and against the public policy. 

Justice Saran observed:"As regarding the non-adherence to the rules of natural justice, in my opinion, where the purported action is resting on a policy decision of the State, it would not require a scrutiny on the issue as long as it satisfies the test of arbitrariness and is based on sound reasons, equity, fairplay and justice. It is not a case where the State Government while retaining some of the 'ASVs‘, has done away with the others rather the panel itself has been scrapped and the reasons assigned is non- availability of fund and non-availability of work." 

The petitioners' contention regarding abandonment of the committee constituted to examine the grievance of the petitioners under the Cabinet decision dated February 19, 2015 mentioned in the letter of the Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat Department dated February 20, 2015. The resolution of the Cabinet passed on February 19, 2015 was acted upon and though a meeting was held on January 21, 2015 by the Chief Minister but it did not reach any conclusion. Although the file contained several notings which reflected that it was being acted upon until March 11, 2015 but it is apparent that thereafter the file was closed and the matter waas proceeded in another file Bearing No.LFkk0-02/06- 05/2010 and after a gap of five months the notings have initiated to consider the continuity of the panel iself. The notings started from August 3, 2015 and proposal mooted was for reconsideration of the continuity of the panel. In this background and after taking legal opinion thereon that a fresh memorandum was placed before the Cabinet, and discussed the reasons which form the basis for cancellation of the panel and it was accepted by the Cabinet decision and following which a formal order was issued by the Planning and Development department bearing Memo No.1549 dated July 26, 2016 cancelling the panel of "ASVs". The discussions clarified two aspects of the matter. Firstly that the decision of the Cabinet to constitute a Committee for considering the grievance of the "ASVs" was acted upon until March, 2015 but abandoned thereafter and the reasons were not explained.  Secondly, it was submitted by the counsel for the State that the contention committee so constituted was to consider only the cases of contract employee, was not correct. 

Justice Saran noted:"It is a different matter that the Cabinet resolution dated 19.2.2015 was not taken to its conclusion and may be a committee was also constituted to examine the cases of contract employees but it is not a case where the grievance of the petitioners did not find notice rather it was considered by the Cabinet and directions were issued for examining the same. It is another aspect of the matter this exercise was abandoned midway." The issue was whether in view of the position explained where undisputedly the Cabinet had constituted a committee to consider the grievance of the "ASVs", the subsequent resolution of
the Cabinet in the background explained in the memorandum which forms the basis for the resolution impugned, would require an interference. 

Justice Saran observed: "In my opinion, the two resolutions have been passed by the Cabinet at different stages. May be at the stage when the first resolution was passed on 19.2.2015, the Cabinet was of a different opinion but the developments that has taken place in between the first resolution passed on 19.2.2015 and the second resolution passed on 7.6.2016, becomes a relevant factor for a judicial review of the action taken. The counter affidavit as regarding the work discharged by these petitioners coupled with the stand on the availability of work and availability of funds, would not persuade this Court to issue any direction to the State to continue with the panel. Even if there have been stray instances of work being taken from these "ASVs", the choice lies with the State for such engagement. If the State has decided to now get the work done departmentally and there is nothing on record which would show that the State has deviated from such stand, there is no reason for the petitioners to raise any grievance nor any occasion arises to interfere with the decision. In fact in the words of the Supreme Court as found in the judgment of the Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) and Nihal Singh (supra), any direction by this Court in the circumstances discussed, either for continuation of the panel or for considering the cases of these petitioners for regularisation, in absence of facts supporting continuity of discharge, would amount to a direction for creation of post as well as financial liability which is neither in the domain nor within the framework of judicial review."
 

Supreme Court upholds order by Justice Soni Shrivastava refusing grant of anticipatory bail

In Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court’s Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 2-page long order dated August 25, 2025 in the case related to a scam in the University and the alleged financial defraud by all the petitioners. . It reads:”It is also a fact that the special leave petitions preferred by Mr. Jitendra Kumar (SLP (Crl.) No.7000/2025 @ D.No.22186/2025), Mr. Manoj Gupta(SLP (Crl.) No. 7168/2025 @ D.No. 24324/2025), Dr. Ashok Kumar (SLP (Crl.) No.8245/2025 @ D.No.27267/2025) and Mr. Sunil Agarwal(SLP (Crl.) No.8215/2025 @ D.No.27269 of 2025) asking pre-arrest bail have been rejected by this Court. 2) Considering all these aspects, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for. Accordingly, the special leave petitions stand rejected….3) However, the officers are at liberty to take recourse as permissible.” The special leave to appeal (Criminal) arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated April 17, 2025 in Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar through Spl. Vigilance Unit, Patna, Bihar passed by the Patna High Court. 

In Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar through Spl. Vigilance Unit, Patna, Bihar (2025), in her 7-page long order dated April 17, 2025, Justice Soni Srivastava of Patna High Court had concluded:”…it appears that there is strong allegation of conspiracy as against the present petitioner showing his involvement and also considering the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been denied the anticipatory bail by co-ordinate benches of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 74836 of 2024, Vide order dated 08.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32493 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 22548 of 2024, Cr. Misc No. 33718 of 2024, Cr. Misc No. 31143 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 32191 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 32719 of 2024 and Cr. Misc. No. 83228 of 2024 and also considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal (Supra), I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and his prayer for bail is hereby, rejected. 12. This application stands dismissed.” 

Justice Srivastava referred to Supreme Court’s paragraphs 23-26 of the decision in Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab (Special Leave to Appeal (CRL). No.3247 of 2025) reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 291. It reads:  “23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of the public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the Courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature of aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, the Court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant- accused of indulging in corruption. 25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the un-savoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: "Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long". In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell. because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. 26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order; then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties.” 

The petitioner had approached the Court apprehending his arrest in connection with Special Case No. 48 of 2021 arising out of Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2021 registered under sections 109, 120B, 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as sections 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (b) r/w 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the FIR, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, while working as the Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya hatched a criminal conspiracy with the assistance of Finance Officer, Veer Kunwar Singh University, the Registrar, Patliputra University private firms namely, Ms Poorva Graphics & M/s XLICT software Pvt. Ltd and other unknown accused persons and fraudulently and dishonestly cheated the Government to the extent of Rs. 20 crores during the year 2019-21 in the matter of purchase of various items related to the use of University during examination and otherwise, it is alleged that ignoring the advice of the competent officer, the accused persons raised bill to the extent of Rs. 20 crores from Magadh University and Veer Kunwar Singh University without assessing the requirement and violating the tender procedure and justification of rates etc. The Finance Officer, Veer Kunwar Singh University and Registrar Patliputra University cleared all the fraudulent bills of the private firms. The petitioner, who was officiating as the Finance Officer of Patliputra University, was deputed to Magadh University as Finance Officer by the order of the Chancellor/Governor of Bihar where he served in the capacity of Finance Officer from April 15, 2021 to July 4, 2021. The allegation against the petitioner was that he connived with the main accused, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the then Vice Chancellor and other accused persons to clear the fraudulent bills of accused nos. 3 and 4. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted before the High Court that from bare perusal of the First Information Report, it can be inferred at the outset that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced during the investigation and the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 20.03.2023. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was further submitted that being the Finance Officer, the petitioner is bound to act in accordance with the orders of the Vice Chancellor. Section 16 of the Act also reflects that the Finance Officer has no role in making any financial decisions for the University, rather he holds a formal role as a co-signatory upon the payment of cheques. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had lodged complaints with secretary, Governor Secretariat about the mishaps of the University long before the initiation of the present case. Annexure-4 to the present application has been brought on record to substantiate the said submission. 

The Special Public Prosecutor for the Vigilance (SVU) opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the SVU. It has been stated in paragraphs-10, 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was in connivance with the prime accused and other accused persons. There was a fraud in supply made by the accused nos. 2 and 3 and knowing these facts the Examination Controller and the petitioner signed the cheques. Hence, the petitioner is a part of criminal conspiracy due to which huge amount of Government of Bihar was misappropriated. The counsel for the Special P.P. for the SVU hence, submits that a huge loss has been caused to the state exchequer and the petitioner is part of the said conspiracy. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that the anticipatory bail application of several similarly situated accused persons have already been rejected by the High Court. In support of their contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in Santosh So Dwarkadas Fafat vs. State of Maharastra (2017) 9 SCC 714, Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2022) 1 SCC 676, Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI through Director 2021 SCC Online SC 941,  Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI & Anr. Reported as (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Mahdoom Bava vs. CBI reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299. 

Justice Arvind Singh Chandel to superannuate

By order of the Acting Chief Justice PavanKumar Bhimappa Bajanthri, Registrar General of Patna High Court issued a notice dated August 29, 2025 for a Full Court Farewell Reference the  August 30, 2025 in the Centenary Hall in the honor of Justice Arvind Singh Chandel, who is superannuating on August 31, 2025. Justice Chandel had joined Patna High Court on June 8, 2024. Prior to that he was relieved as puisne judge from the High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur on June 7, 2024. He had served in the High Court of Chattisgarh as Additional Registrar (Administration), Registrar (Vigilance) and Registrar General. He started service as Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in 1987 in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He as Principal District Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court, Presiding Officer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Chattisgarh. 

During his tenure at Patna High Court, Justice Chandel was part of the bench which delivered 193 judgements. In his last 8-page long judgement dated August 27, 2025 in Nupul Kumari vs.The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), he concluded:''The petitioner, who is wife of the delinquent, is directed to get all consequential benefits like full salary of the delinquent from 06.08.2018 to 23.02.2022 and other applicable benefits. It will be done by the Respondents within three months from today.'' Justice Chandel observed:''it is clear that the material witnesses were not examined by the department. Further the witnesses, who were examined by the enquiry officer, have not been cross-examined by the delinquent. Opportunity of cross-examination has also not been given and provided to him. Virtually, it is a case of no evidence. In spite of that, the enquiry officer wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the charges levelled against the delinquent are duly proved. The disciplinary authority and the authority who dismissed the memorial have also not considered these aspects. Therefore, all the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed." He set aside the order by Superintendent of Police, Bagaha, West Champaran and the order dated September 27, 2019 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna dismissing the memorial filed by the husband of the petitioner. He delivered three judgements on August 27, 2025. 

In one of his earliest orders in Priyanka Rani @ Neha Gupta vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2024), Justice Chandel condoned a delay of 237 days’ in filing the revision application. The second respondent was Naheed, daughter of Sirajuddin @Gudu Mohalla, Patna City Noor Chauraha, Khajekala, Patna The revision petition was preferred by the petitioner for being aggrieved by the order dated January 10, 2023 passed by the Special Court, POCSO-cum-A.D.J.-VI, Gaya in connection with POCSO Case No. 29 of 2022 corresponding to Kotwali P.S. Case No. 179 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the Special Court rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for discharge for which a charge-sheet was filed against him. In his 3-page long judgement dated July 4, 2024, Justice Chandel observed: ''Bare perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner shows that the application before learned A.D.J.-VI was preferred for discharging the petitioner on various grounds. While deciding the said application, the learned Special Court rejected the said application without assigning any reason. The learned Special Court had not discussed the facts available on records or considered any grounds submitted by the petitioner for discharge.'' He concluded:''...the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Special Court POCSO-cum-A.D.J.-VI, Gaya is, hereby, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Special Court to decide the said mater afresh. 5. However, the Special Court is directed to hear both the parties and pass a reasoned order as early as possible probably within a period of three months from the receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the revision application is allowed.''

Justice P. B. Bajanthri takes charge as Acting Chief Justice of Patna High Court

The Registrar General, Patna High Court has issued a notice dated August 29, 2025 regarding the new role of Justice P. B. Bajanthri, who has been assigned the task of Acting Chief Justice. The notice reads: "As directed, please take notice that with effect from 29.08.2025 (Friday), after I 0:45 A.M., new filings will be made and accepted in the name of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, Justice P. B. Bajanthri." Justice Bajanthri will retire on October 22, 2025. 

Jagannathan Srinivasan, Joint Secretary, Appointments Division, Department of Justice, Government of India issued a notification dated August 27, 2025 addressed to The Manager, Government of India Press with regard to Justice Bajanthri. It reads: ''In exercise of the power conferred by Article 223 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Pavankumar Bhimappa Bajanthri, Judge of the Patna High Court, to perform the duties of office of the Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from the date Shri Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, Chief Justice, Patna High Court relinquishes charge of his office consequent upon his elevation as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.''

He took oath as Judge of Patna High Court on October 20, 2021. During October 21, 2021-December 31, 2021, he was part of the bench that delivered 534 judgements. In 2022, his bench delivered 1785 judgements. In 2023, his bench delivered 930 judgements. In 2024, he was part of the bench that delivered 825 judgements. In 2025, his bench has delivered 641 judgements till August 28.  

As part of the Division Bench comprising him and Justice Vikash Jain, he authored his first 10-page long judgement dated October 21, 2021 in Hirawati Devi vs.. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Department, Bihar & Ors. (2021), wherein, he set aside the order dated October 28, 2019 and November 1, 2019 and the 15-page long judgment dated March 8, 2021 passed by Justice Mohit Kumar Shah in Hirawati Devi vs.. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Department, Bihar & Ors.

The petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ or writs direction for quashing the order dated October 28, 2019 passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the petitioner was removed from the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Lohdan Block-Chand, District-Kaimur at Bhabua for the left over period of Gram Panchayat, on the charge of defalcation of public fund though the defalcated amount along with interest was deposited in the account and also been ordered for recovery of compound interest for the period of defalcated amount was kept by the petitioner holding that the defalcated amount would have been used by the petitioner for her personal use. Justice Shah  did not find ''any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.11.2019, thus the present writ petition stands dismissed, being bereft of any merit.'' He had referred to the order dated 28.11.2019 to be ''well reasoned, legal and a self speaking order''. He had added that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate as to how the impugned order dated 28.10.2019 and 01.11.2019, passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar, Patna and the grounds mentioned therein for removal of the petitioner as a Mukhiya, are perverse and inapposite.'' Justice Bajanthri had reversed the order by Justice Shah.  

In Smt. Sarita Bhat @ Smt. Sarita Bhatt vs. The State Of Bihar and Ors.(2022), as part of the Division Bench, he delivered a judgement wherein, he granted relief to the appellant. The 6-page long judgement dated December 22, 2022 reads: the concerned respondent is hereby directed to consider the name of appellant to appoint her on compassionate ground to Class III post. 10. In the light of these facts that she had fulfilled the requisite education qualification and other criteria including relaxation of certain criteria to such of those persons who were seeking compassionate appointment. Appellant has made out a case. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date receipt of this order. 11. Accordingly, present L.P.A stands allowed." The appellant had assailed the order by Justice Jyoti Saran the Single Judge dated August 29, 2017 passed in C.W.J.C No. 12197 of 2016. The appellant was wife of deceased Late Subhash Bhat had submitted application for compassionate appointment on October 31, 2012. Her counsel had submitted that the Single Judge had committed error in not appreciating factual aspects of the matter. Justice Bajanthri relied on the decision by the Supreme Court in Delhi Jal Board vs. Nirmala Devi, 2022 (Live Law) (SC) 863/CA 7047 of 2022 decided on October 19, 2022 wherein it was held that in respect of compassionate appointment of a person, the date on which application is submitted, education qualification and relevant provision as on the date of application for compassionate appointment is required to be taken note of. He observed: ''In the light of these facts and circumstances of the case the appellant has made out a prima facie case so as to interfere with the decision of the respondent in not providing compassionate appointment to Class III post and order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C No. 12197 of 2016 is set aside. 9. Accordingly, C.W.J.C No. 12197 of 2016 filed by the appellant stands allowed.''  In Smt. Sarita Bhat vs. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar & Ors. (2017), Justice Saran concluded:''I refuse to exercise my extraordinary jurisdiction to grant indulgence. The writ petition is dismissed' in his 2-page long judgement dated August 29, 2017. Justice Bajanthri had reversed the judgement by Justice Saran.  

In Mehin Nigar Begum vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2023), Justice Bajanthri led bench reversed the judgement by Justice Shivaji Pandey, the Single Judge. In his 4-page long judgement dated Jnaury 2, 2023, he observed:''The appellant was working since the year 2003, even though there were no disciplinary regulation governing the post of Aganwadi Sevika at the same time, if there are serious allegations in such an event a formal inquiry should have been held before passing order of removal from service. The same has not been appreciated by the learned single judge while passing the impugned order on 12.07.2019 in C.J.W.C. No. 10485 of 2017. Accordingly, the present LPA is allowed while setting aside the order dated 12.07.2019 and order of removal from service dated 03.04.2017 read with 29.12.2014.'' In his 3-page long judgement dated July 12, 2019, Justice Pandey had concluded:''this Court does not find any error in the impugned orders. This writ petition is devoid of any merit, accordingly, the same is dismissed.'' Unlike Justice Pandey, Justice Bajanthri led Division Bench found merit in the writ petition.

In Ramanuj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary Government of Bihar & Ors. (2024), Justice Bajanthri led bench modified the 4-page long judgement dated August 9, 2019 by Justice Madhuresh Prasad. Drawing on Supreme Court's decision in the case of Secy., State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, in his 3-page long judgement dated January 2, 2024, Justice Bajanthri concluded:''The appellant cannot claim equity in future as and when regular Class- IV post is filled up. The concerned authority is hereby directed to take back the appellant forthwith and continue him against one of the Class-IV post till regular recruitment is made. 4. With the above observations, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.08.2020 passed in CWJC No. 374 of 2019 stands modified. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 1165 of 2019 stands disposed of." Unlike Justice Bajanthri, Justice Prasad had concluded:''From the pleadings on record, it is obvious that the petitioner does not have any enforceable claim for regularization against a Class IV post. The order of the District Magistrate, Arwal dated 04.08.2018 does not suffer from any legal infirmity inasmuch as after due consideration of all the facts, the petitioner’s claim for regularization has been rejected. 10 In the circumstances, at best, the petitioner has performed part time duties as a Sweeper which too was not against any sanctioned post and, as such, petitioner has no legally enforceable claim for regularization. 11. Writ petition is dismissed." Justice Bajanthri modified this judgement.   

In Pankaj Kumar Rai vs. The Union of India through Director General of Police, CRPF, DIGP Administration, New Delhi & Ors. (2024), Justice Bajanthri led division bench delivered an 8-page long judgement dated May 6, 2024. He concluded:"9. Be that as it may, for the purpose of providing compassionate appointment to the post of Safai Karmchari one cannot insist physical standard of height. Imposing such condition may not be meeting the social justice insofar as providing compassionate appointment. Therefore for the present case prescription of physical standard in particularly specific height stands read down." He rejected the submission of the Assistant Commandant, C.R.P.F. 

The appellant had assailed the order of the learned single dated August 28, 2019 passed in CWJC No. 16708 of 2019. The core issue involved in the present lis was whether appellant was entitled to be considered for the compassionate appointment on account of the fact that his father died in harness in the year 2012, when his father was holder of Class-IV Post/Class III Post. The Official respondents examined the eligibility of the appellant and found that he did not fulfill the physical standard of height to the post of Constable/Constable Peon and similar post. Non consideration of appellant's name for compassionate appointment was a subject matter of CWJC No. 16708 of 2019. The single judge did not appreciated the relevant policy decision of the official-respondent insofar as Standing Order No. 01/ 2012 notified on 09.01.2012 in respect of Recruitment of Constable (Daftry/Peon/Safai Karamchari (Min) Farash/Library Attendant) in C.R.P.F. Physical standards prescribed for the open competition/recruitment to the various posts. 

Justice Bajanthri observed:"there is no prescription of physical standard insofar as compassionate appointment is concerned. Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Nair Service Society v. Dr. T. Beermasthan, (2009) 5 SCC 545 in para 48". 

Supreme Court's judgment reads: "48. Several decisions have been cited before us by the respondents, but it is well established that judgments in service jurisprudence should be understood with reference to the particular service rules in the State governing that field. Reservation provisions are enabling provisions, and different State Governments can have different methods of reservation. There is no challenge to the Rules, and what is challenged is in the matter of application alone. In our opinion the  communal rotation has to be applied taking 20 vacancies as a block."

Justice Bajanthri added that in the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court what is required to be taken note of is relevant statute or relevant executive order for the purpose of case in hand. In the present case, appellant's grievance is against the C.R.P.F organization in seeking compassionate appointments. They have to follow Standing Order No. 05 of 2001 in which there is no prescription of physical standard for the post of Constable(Daftry/Peon/Safai Karamchari(Min)/Farash) and for Constable (Library Attendant). On the other hand, Standing Order No. 01 of 2012 notified on 09.01.2012 by the Director General C.R.P.F is concerned it is for the direct recruitment and it does not relate to compassionate appointments. Therefore, the official respondents cannot insist that the appellant was required to fulfil the physical standard for the purpose of Constable/ Peon/Safai Karamchari(Min)/Farash. It is to be noted that compassionate appointment is a social legislation, therefore, the employer must be fare in considering the family members who are facing harness in the family. Moreover, for the post of Safai Karamchari and related works to be extracted from such Safai Karamchari physical standard of height may not be relevant. It may be relevant for Constable post. Therefore, the learned single judge has not appreciated the above three documents namely Standing Order No. 01 of 2012 notified by the Director General of CRPF dated 09.01.2012 Standing Order No. 05 of 2001 issued by the office of the CRPF read with an official memorandum issued by the DOPT dated 09.10.1998. Official memorandum of the DOPT dated 09.10.1998 would not assist the respondent (C.R.P.F) in the view of the fact that they have their own Standing Order No. 05 of 2001 insofar as governing the compassionate appointment, therefore, the official respondents cannot take any material from the official memorandum dated 09.10.1998 issued by the DOPT.

He noted that one can understand if the C.R.P.F have adopted the official memorandum dated 09.10.1998 of DOPT in such circumstances para 5 eligibility would have been invoked for the purpose of denial of selection and appointment on compassionate ground nly on this score that appellant does not fulfil the physical standard of height. 

He observed that the appellant made out a case to interfere with the order by Justice Ashutosh Kumar, the single judge dated August 28, 2019 passed in CWJC No. 16708 of 2019 for it to be  set aside. 

Justice Kumar had concluded:"9. Times without number, this Court as well as the Apex Court have held that compassionate appointment cannot be treated as an additional mode of appointment and if it is done, the whole purpose of enacting such scheme would stand defeated. Seven years have passed by since the father of the petitioner died and there does not appear to be any plausible reason for directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 10. Considering the age of the petitioner, he would be well advised to enter the portals of the Government through the front door and not through compassionate appointment. 11. This advisory from the Bench may be uncalled for but the same has been incorporated in the order for the petitioner to understand that it would be better to face the world on one’s own merits rather than relying upon the death of his father for obtaining appointment. 12. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to pass any order much less any mandamus/direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 13. The petition stands dismissed." Relying on Supreme Court's decision in case of Nair Service Society vs. Dr. T. Beermasthan, Justice Bajanthri reversed the decision by Justice Kumar. 

Unlike Justice Kumar, Justice Bajanthri directed official respondents to  revisit the entire matter of the appellant and proceed to consider afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order without insisting on the height standard for the post of Safai Karamchari.

In The Union of India through the Chairman, Indian Railway, Railway Board, New Delhi vs. Sato Devi (2025), Justice Bajanthri led bench delivered a 3-page long judgement dated January 24, 2025 dismissed the writ petition. He concluded:''4. Before 07.12.2020, the date on which deceased employee died, the official petitioners should have taken necessary steps to remove the entries made in the Service Register insofar as incorporating the name of the respondent-Sato Devi. Such steps have not been undertaken during the life time of the deceased employee. Now, at this distance of time and in the absence of deceased employee, hands of the official petitioners are tied and they are bound by the entries made in the Service Register which is attested by the Senior Officers. This entry cannot be tinkered at this distance of time. 5. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the petitioners have not made out a case. 6. Writ petition dismissed." The Union of India and others, the petitioners had assailed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dated July 23, 2024 passed in OA No.050/00782/2022. The Respondent-Sato Devi, the wife of the deceased-Jageshwar Paswan, retired Gang man, Jhanjharpur who retired on March 31, 2012. Before his retirement, he was stated to have submitted an application to enter the name of respondent-Sato Devi in the Service Book and it was entered under the signature of Senior Officers. He had died on December 7, 2020. His first wife-Reshami Devi died on June 6, 2021. The core issue involved in the present lis was whether second wife- Sato Devi (respondent) was entitled to have the benefit of Family Pension and other benefits or not?

Prior to joining Patna High Court, he was the Judge of Karnataka High Court from November 17, 2018 till October 2021. He was transferred as an Judge of High Court of Punjab and Haryana on March 16, 2015.  Earlier, he was appointed as an additional judge of the Karnataka High Court on January 2, 2015. He was enrolled as advocate on 1990 and practiced in High Court of Karnataka. During 1993-94, he was a Standing Counsel of KPSC. He was appointed as a Notary by the Government of India in May 2006. He was born on October 23, 1963. He studied in Vidhyavardhaka Sangha, K.L.E. Society and S.J.R.C. Law College, Bangalore.

Also read:Supreme Court upholds judgement by Justice P. B. Bajanthri

 

Scope of judicial review is very limited in contractual/tender matters: Chief Justice led Pancholi bench

In M/s Ranjeet Kumar vs. Airport Authority of India through the Executive Director (Commercial), Airport Authority of India & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 23-page long judgment dated August 27, 2025. This is the 27th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice wherein, he concluded:''Now, it is well settled that scope of judicial review is very limited in contractual/tender matters. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the respondent-authority. 27. We are, therefore, of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the same. 28. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.''

The petitioner's counsel submitted that as per Clause 2(iv) of commercial circular dated December 9, 2020 issued by the AAI, Commercial Concessionaires were given an option to get the contracts extended for a period equivalent to the remaining contract period w.e.f March 25, 2020 or three years, whichever is lesser on certain conditions. It was also submitted that as per the said Clause, the respondent was required to grant extension for a period of three years from December 9, 2024. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to get the extension as per aforesaid clause, despite which the contract has not been extended under the said clause. It was further submitted that the petitioner sent an e-mail on January 28, 2024 and accepted the terms and conditions of commercial circular dated 14.08.2020 and 09.12.2020. The respondent-authorities vide e-mail dated 02.07.2022 informed the petitioner that the request may be considered as per CHQ guidelines and CSS, subject to clearance of all dues as per the norms. Thereafter, the respondent-AAI also wrote a letter on 11.08.2022 that the request of the petitioner is being taken up as per the CHQ guidelines and AAI policy issued from time to time subject to, clearance of all dues and satisfactory performance as per the norms. 

The senior counsel submitted that promise was given by the respondent-authority to the petitioner that as per the clause, the agreement would be extended for a period of three years. Therefore, the petitioner acted on the said promise given by the respondent-authority and thereby made certain investment. The respondent-authority be restricted from contending that the agreement cannot be extended in view of the decision taken by the respondent-authority to construct MLCP. It was also submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, principle of promissory estoppel would apply. Thereafter, the senior advocate submitted that, in fact, the respondent-authority has granted extension for a  period of three months from 10.12.2024 to 09.03.2025 and second extension was granted from 10.03.2025 to 09.06.2025 as per the original terms of the agreement. 

The petitioner had also shifted certain machinery at MLCP. He urged that appropriate direction be issued to the respondent-authorities. The senior advocate also submitted that for MLCP, the respondent-authority had issued a short-term separate NIT. However, four attempts of the respondent-authorities have failed. He urged that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authorities. He placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, AIR 1971 SC 1021; Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 409, Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1 and Union of India vs. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC. He also submitted that the respondent-authorities extended the contract period for three years qua the different agencies located at different airports. He contended that the discriminatory treatment was given to the petitioner by respondent-authority by not extending the contract for a period of three years. 

Senior counsel for the respondent also submitted that no promise was given to the petitioner that the contract would be extended for a period of three years as per CSS and, therefore, principle of promissory estoppel will not be applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore also, the decisions upon which the reliance is placed by the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was misconceived. He placed reliance upon the Supreme Court's decisions in. N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain &
Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 127; Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, (2023) 19 SCC 1; State of Haryana v. Chanan Mal, AIR 1976 SC 1654; 4. Airport Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) & Others; 2022 SCC OnLine 1334. 

Justice Panchili got persuaded by the senior counsel for the respondent.

 

Chief Justice Pancholi led bench upholds the judgement by Dr Anshuman denying appointment on compassionate ground

In Gautam Kumar vs.The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Nani Tagia delivered a 9-page long judgment dated August 25, 2025. This is the 26th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice wherein, he concluded:"no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 10199 of 2018." It was uploaded on teh website of the High Court on August 28, 2025, on the day of the farewell of Justice Pancholi. The appeal was filed under Clause-X of Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916 against judgment dated February 13, 2024 passed by the Single Judge in CWJC No. 10199 of 2018, whereby the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant/original writ petitioner.

In Gautam Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Dr. Anshuman, the Single Judge had passed a 5-page long judgement dated February 13, 2024 wherein he drew on the paragraph-48 of decision by the full bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Rajendra Menon, Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Dr. Ravi Ranjan in Niraj Kumar Mallick vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2018(2) PLJR 951 (FB). The judgement was authored by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad. 

The counsel of the petitioner had referred to the ratio laid down in this decision of the full bench of the court. It reads: “48. In terms of the clarification offered by the department, on receipt of information that other siblings of the applicant are in employment, the competent authority would be required to objectively look into the nature of the employment and the resources being generated by the employed sibling from such employment. On an objective consideration where it is found that other sibling of the applicant is gainfully employed in such an employment from which he/she is in a position and has capacity to provide sustenance/maintenance to the other dependents, the application for appointment on compassionate ground would not fit in the scheme in terms of the clarification at Annexure-'A' referred above but where it is found that the employment of the other sibling is of such a nature that it is not generating resources so as to make him able to provide both ends meet, for sustenance/maintenance to the other dependents of the deceased government employee and despite gainful employment of one of the dependents but because of his poor income from such employment he is not in a position to provide two ends meet to the other dependents, therefore they are on the verge of starvation, destitution and penury, the authorities of the State would be liable to consider the application of other dependent for appointment on compassionate ground. No other plea in any form whatsoever would be a ground to provide the benefit of the scheme of compassionate appointment.” 

Referring to paragraph 48, Dr. Anshuman concluded: ''5. No such plea has ever been raised by the petitioner at any early occasion for which ratio has been laid in para-48 of this Full Bench decision, this Court finds that the petitioner has no case as in Annexure-7. The only plea has been taken that the brother who is in employment is living separately. 6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed.'' 

The counsel for the appellant/original petitioner had contended that the father of the appellant/original petitioner was serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the district of Aurangabad and while he was on duty, he died on May 20, 2013. It was also submitted that the appellant/original petitioner, son of the deceased employee, submitted an application for getting appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme of the State Government, on December 9, 2013. It was also contended that the application was kept pending by the respondent authorities and, ultimately, the District Compassionate Committee, Aurangabad recommended the name of the appellant/original petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground on September 19, 2014. The counsel referred the minutes of the meeting of the committee. The counsel for the appellant/original petitioner submitted that pursuant to the recommendation made by the committee, the petitioner was asked to report to the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad and thereafter the appellant/original petitioner went to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad. However, Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad informed the appellant/original petitioner that there was no vacancy under the fixed quota of appointment on compassionate ground and he was asked to appear at Police Centre, Aurangabad along with all the required documents for necessary physical test for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Sepoy. It was also submitted that thereafter, his appointment was kept pending vide order dated February 27, 2017. The counsel for the appellant/original petitioner submitted that ultimately vide order dated February 7, 2018, the appellant/original writ petitioner was informed that he cannot be considered for his appointment on compassionate ground as his brother was already in government service and employed as a Driver in Railways since April 23, 2014. The petitioner, therefore, filed the captioned writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the respondent authority.

The Singe Judge vide impugned judgment dated February 13, 2024 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/original petitioner relying upon the decision of Full Bench in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. the State of Bihar reported in 2018(2) PLJR 951 (FB). The counsel for the appellant/original petitioner assailed the  judgment on the ground that on the date of application submitted by the appellant/ original petitioner, his brother was not in service and his brother was appointed as a Driver in Railways only on April 23, 2014. It was also submitted that even the income of the brother of the appellant/original petitioner was not sufficient to maintain the entire family. He also submitted that his brother was residing separately and, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Single Judge ought to have quashed and set aside the order passed by the concerned respondent authority with a direction to respondent authorities to appoint appellant/original petitioner on compassionate ground. Thus, counsel urged that the impugned judgment be set aside and appropriate order be passed.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/State opposed the appeal. He submitted that at the time of the recommendation made by the concerned committee on September 19, 2014, the committee was not aware about the appointment of the brother of appellant/original petitioner on the post of Driver in Railways on April 23, 2024. When this aspect was noticed by the respondent authorities, the order came to be passed by the respondent authority, as the brother of appellant/ original petitioner got the appointment and was gainfully employed and, therefore, as per the policy of the respondents/State, the appellant/original petitioner was not entitled to get the appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the respondent authority has rightly passed the order, rejecting the claim of the appellant/original petitioner. It was submitted that the Single Judge did not commit any error while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner (appellant) and, therefore, the High Court should not interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Single Judge. 

Justice Pancholi observed: In the present case, there are certain undisputed facts i.e., the father of the appellant/original petitioner died on 20th May, 2013. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application on 09.12.2013 for getting appointment on compassionate ground. It was true that the application of the appellant/original petitioner was kept pending for some time and thereafter the concerned committee, in its meeting, recommended that the petitioner be appointed on compassionate ground. The said commendation was made on 1Sep9.09.2014. It was also not in dispute that in the meantime, the brother of the appellant/original petitioner was gainfully employed on 23.04.2014. He was appointed as a Driver in Railways. From the record, it appears that the concerned committee, which made the aforesaid recommendation on 19.09.2014, was not aware about the gainful employment of the brother of the appellant/original petitioner and, therefore, the aforesaid recommendation was made. However, the fact remains that the brother of the petitioner has been gainfully employed on 23.04.2014, i.e., prior to the recommendation of the concerned committee. 9. At this stage, we would like to refer the policy of the State Govt. for appointment of the dependents of the deceased employee on compassionate ground. 

Justice Pancholi referred to paragraph 45 and 49 of the decision render by the full bench of the High in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick vs. the State of Bihar. It reads: “45. A perusal of Clause (d) of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent no.2 in CWJC No.17143 of 2016 would show that the clarification offered by the General Administration Department clearly states that where any of the dependents of a deceased government servant is„ gainfully employed‟ then irrespective of the fact whether he lives together or separate from other dependents, the benefit of compassionate appointment would not be available to any other dependents of the deceased government servant. I am of the considered opinion that the clarification offered by the Department being a part of the policy decision governing the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground is based on judicial pronouncement of this Court in the case of Vishal Kumar (supra) and it is fully in consonance with the object of compassionate appointment, it is also in tune with the views expressed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions some of them I have referred herein above. It is also reasonable one and passes the test of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The clarification vide Clause (d) of Annexure-''A‟ to the counter affidavit of respondent no.2 cannot be found fault with on the touchstone of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." 

In  Vishal Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2004(2) PLJR 453, upon hearing the appeal preferred against the order dated August 18, 2003 in Vishal Kumar vs. State of Bihar CWJC. No. 6712 of 2003, the appellant on the death of his father applied for job as a compassionate appointment. The claim was rejected on May 21, 2003 by the District Compassionate Committee of which the Collector is the Chairman. The matter related to seeking a job in the Rural Engineering Organization Department. The job was denied by the Committee on the ground that the elder brother of the appellant had been gainfully employed in the State Bank of India. The contention of the appellant was that his brother and father were separate and evidence was offered, to the effect. The High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi S. Dhavan and Justice Shashank Kumar Singh observed: ''The court is afraid, this logic of law will not apply for if there will be rivalry within the family as in the present case between the father and the son or between siblings, a job can be offered on the principle of compassionate appointment only to one person and when one is gainfully employed, there is no obligation to offer a job in an otherwise backdoor entry employment.'' The Division had upheld the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.

The relevant paragraph of the judgement in Niraj Kumar Mallick vs. the State of Bihar was cited by Justice Pancholi. It reads: ''49. In my opinion the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vishal Kumar (supra) followed by learned Writ Court in the case of Mahabir Paswan (supra) and Jay Prakash Choudhary (supra) are laying down the correct law. In none of these writ applications, the petitioners have pleaded that their other siblings are in such an employment by which they are unable to get sufficient money so as to provide the both ends meet to these petitioners, therefore we find no error in the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner(s) on the ground that their other siblings are in employment. I would, therefore approve the judgment dated 22.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.10236 of 2013 which has followed the judgment of the Hon‟ble Division Bench in the case of Vishal Kumar (supra)”. He concluded: ''11. Keeping in view the aforesaid policy of the State Government and the clarification made by the Government as well as the decision rendered by the Full Bench in Kumar Mallick (supra), if the facts of the present case are examined, we are of the view that when the brother of the appellant/original petitioner was gainfully employed on 23.04.2014, no error has been committed by the respondent authority while rejecting the claim of the appellant/original petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. Similarly, learned Single Judge has also not committed any error while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 10199 of 2018. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.'' Thus, Justice Pancholi upheld the judgement by Dr. Anshuman.