In Ajit Kumar Pandey vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma delivered a 2-page long judgement dated November 1, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"if the petitioner has any grievance to it, he shall be at liberty to make an appropriate application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised. 5. With the aforesaid liberty, the present writ petition stands disposed of." This was the seventh judgement authored by Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh. The second respondent was Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.
The petitioner had prayed for direction to the respondents to implement in Patna the measures mandated by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated August 11, 2025 in a Suo Motu Writ Petition, including capture, sterilization, immunization, and permanent relocation of all stray/community dogs to secure purpose-built shelters, within a strict and fixed time frame. He had sought direction to direct the respondents to construct, operationalise, and/or upgrade shelter facilities in Patna with adequate capacity, trained manpower, sterilization units, veterinary care, and 24-hour CCTV surveillance, to direct the respondents to establish in Patna a dedicated 24x7 helpline for reporting dog-bite incidents and aggressive stray dog behaviour, ensuring on-ground action within a maximum of four hours; and to direct the respondents to maintain verifiable daily records of stray dogs captured, sterilized, vaccinated, and sheltered, and to file periodic compliance reports before the High Court. The Advocate General appearing for the State, submitted that the issue raised in the writ petition was already sub judice before the Supreme Court and the same WAs being pursued in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil)No.05 of 2025.
In Birendra Kumar Nidhi vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary to the Government, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), the eighth judgement authored by Justice Singh concluded: "In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to make an appropriate representation before the competent authority under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, who shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of such representation, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders."
In Jyoti Khandelwal, Advocate and Animal Activist vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors.(2025), the ninth judgement authored by Justice Singh concluded:"...the petitioner is directed to approach the Respondent No.5, who shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law." The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gaya was the Respondent No.5.
In Ajay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), the tenth judgement authored by Justice Singh concluded:"Since the matter has already been considered by the authority concerned, we find no reason to pass any further order in the present matter. The same stands disposed off."
In Ram Babu Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), the eleventh judgement authored by Justice Singh concluded:"the petitioner is directed to make an appropriate application before the Respondent No. 5 under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, who shall consider and pass an appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of such representation, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of." The Respondent No. 5 is the Circle Officer, Barhara, Bhojpur.
In Ashutosh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Saharsa & Ors. (2025), the twelfth judgement authored by Justice Singh concluded: "the petitioner is directed to make an appropriate application before the Respondent No. 5 under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, who shall consider and pass an appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of such representation, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties." The Circle Officer, Saur Bazar Anchal, Saharsa is the Respondent No. 5.
In Md. Shadab vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), the thirteenth judgement Justice Singh concluded:"3. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the transfer policy of the State, by virtue of which transfer and posting of the teachers are being made, has been challenged. None of the transferred teachers/Head Masters has approached this Court. Apparently, it appears that it is a sponsored litigation. 4. We find no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same the dismissed."
No comments:
Post a Comment