Justice Sudhir Singh is performing the duties of office of the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court with effect from October 23, 2025. During October 2025-December 10, 2025, he has authored 20 judgements. In his first judgement as Acting Chief Justice in The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. vs. Abhay Kumar (2025), he had authored a 4-page long judgement dated October 30, 2025.
In Nand Kumar Sagar vs.. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma delivered its judgement in case related to Adani Power Limited's project in Pirpainti, Bhgalpur. Justice Singh authored his twentieth judgement dated November 11, 2025, wherein he concluded:"3. After considering the materials on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respective parties, we are of the considered view that the issues raised in the present writ application pertains to the policy decision of the State Government with regard to establishment and implementation of industrial or infrastructural projects, including matters relating to environmental clearances and land allocation involved in such project. Such decisions necessarily fall within the domain of the competent authorities of the State Government, who are empowered to take an appropriate policy decision in accordance with law and prescribed procedures. 4. In view thereof, we find no merit in the present writ application, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed." Nand Kumar Sagar, the petitioner is the co-chairman, Bihar Pradesh Youth Congress, Legal Cell and also a practitioner the High Court.
The petitioner had sought the following reliefs:“a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent Nos. 1, 3, and 5 (MoEFCC, State Forest Department, and BSPCB) to forthwith ensure that no construction or preparatory activities, including land clearing or tree felling, are undertaken by the Project Proponent at the site in Pirpainti, Bhagalpur, without obtaining the requisite and valid Environmental Clearance (EC) under the EIA Notification, 2006, Stage-I and Stage-II Forest Clearances under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and Consents to Establish (CTE) under the Air and Water Acts. b. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the allocation/lease of approximately 1,050 acres of land in Pirpainti, Bhagalpur, to the Project Proponent and quashing and setting aside any such allocation or lease order that has been passed without adhering to the due process of law, transparency, and public interest considerations. c. Issue a Writ in the nature of Prohibition, restraining the Respondent authorities and the Project Proponent from undertaking any activity on the said land parcel that could lead to environmental degradation, deforestation, or harm to the Vikramshila Gangetic Dolphin Sanctuary and its environs, pending the final adjudication of this petition. d. Direct the Respondent No. 1 (MoEFCC) and Respondent No. 3 (State Forest Department) to conduct a thorough and independent inquiry into the allegations of violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the EIA Notification, 2006. e. Direct the Respondent No. 5 (BSPCB) to conduct an immediate inspection of the site and submit a report on the compliance status with environmental norms and consent requirements. f. Order the constitution of an Independent Expert Committee comprising ecologists, environmental scientists, foresters, and socio-economic experts to assess the environmental impact, ecological fragility, biodiversity status (including the Dolphin Sanctuary), socio-economic impact, and compliance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013, regarding the proposed project and land allocation. g. Pending the final outcome of this petition and the report of the Independent Expert Committee, grant an interim order of stay on all ongoing or proposed construction and land clearing activities by the Project Proponent at the Pirpainti site. h. Direct the Respondents to disclose all documents related to the land allocation, ToR, EIA/EMP, public hearing minutes, Forest Clearances, and Consents Establish/Operate, within a stipulated timeframe. i. Pass any such father order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and for the protection of the environment and the fundamental rights of the citizens. j. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to ensure that all statutory compliances, including but not limited to the Environmental Impact Assessment process, Forest Clearances, and adherence to the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, are scrupulously followed before any further steps are taken regarding the proposed thermal power project, and to halt any ongoing activities that violate these mandates.
Earlier, in a press release dated September 13, 2025, Adani Power Ltd. (APL), India's largest private sector thermal power generator had issued from Ahmedabad said that it has signed a 25-year Power Supply Agreement (PSA) with Bihar State Power Generation Company Ltd. (BSPGCL) for supply of 2,400 MW of power from a greenfield ultra super critical plant to be set up at Pirpainti in Bhagalpur district of Bihar.
In M/s Best Furniture Industry vs. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) through its Chairman cum Managing Director & Ors. (2025), Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court delivered a 5-page long fourteenth judgement dated November 3, 2025 wherein, it concluded:" 4. We find no infirmity in the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. The directions issued therein strike a fair balance between the rights of the petitioner and the administrative responsibilities of BIADA under the Exit Policy, 2023. The learned Single Judge rightly directed the petitioner to hand over possession after removing machinery, required BIADA to list the property as vacant, ensure valuation of structures in the petitioner’s presence, and release payment upon re-allotment and realization of allotment fees. These directions ensure procedural fairness, transparency, and protection of public revenue while safeguarding the petitioner’s entitlement. 5. The timeline fixed for completion of the process within twelve months is reasonable and aims to prevent undue delay. The condition imposed by learned Single judge regarding payment is practical and justified as BIADA cannot be expected to pay before realizing the amount. 6. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is affirmed being equitable, reasonable and in conformity with the BIADA Exit Policy, 2023. No interference is called for. 7. The appeal stands dismissed." Justice Singh authored the judgement.
In Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Bhagat vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court delivered a 5-page long fifteenth judgement dated November 3, 2025 wherein, it concluded:"3. From the records, it appears that the respondents have already addressed the grievance of the petitioner vide order dated 09.03.2018 (Annexure-P3). On an appeal preferred by the petitioner, the First Appellate Authority, by order dated 22.06.2018 (Annexure-P4), has also taken action against the erring Circle Officer (Respondent No. 5) with respect to the grievance raised by the petitioner. 4. The Circle Officer is directed to pass a final order in Encroachment Case No. 05/2017-18, after following due process of law, at the earliest. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of." Justice Singh authored the judgement.
The petitioner had sought issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction. particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the concerned authorities to take immediate steps to protect, preserve and restore public land, specifically the land classified as "Girmajarua" and recorded in the Khatiyan as "Dev Sthan" (place of worship), which was illegally encroached upon by private respondents who constructed residential structures over it, thereby violating public rights and the sanctity of the land reserved for religious /community purposes.
In Sunil Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Divisional Commissioner Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur & Ors. (2025), Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court delivered a 5-page long sixteenth judgement dated November 3, 2025 wherein, it concluded:"4. From perusal of both the documents, it is apparent that the land in question is not a cremation ground. A specific statement has been made in report that no cremation activity is being carried out on the said land. The Khatiyan, placed at page 25 of the writ petition, also does not indicate the land being recorded as a cremation ground. Furthermore, the site in question has been approved by the Gram Sabha for construction of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar School, for which no objection has been made. 5. As such, we find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed." Justice Singh authored the judgement.
The petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ preferably in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing upon the concerned respondents not to construct building of Dr. Bhim Raw Ambedkar School in the land of crematorium situated in Mauza-Jagdishpur, Kudhani, Muzaffarpur appertaining to Thana No.255. Khata No. 273. Khesra No.327 which was being used as a funeral rites for several years by the local people. He had sought a direction to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur to take appropriate legal action against Revenue Staff Anchal Amin and Anchal Adhikari who had submitted wrong report with respect to land in question and to direct the respondents to allow the public at large to use.
In Om Prakash Gupta vs. The Union of India through the Railway Secretary & Ors. (2025), Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court delivered a 2-page long seventeenth judgement authored by Justice Singh on November 4, 2025, wherein it concluded:"4. Considering the nature of grievance raised by the petitioner and the representation, having been signed by more than 600 persons, the Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 5 are directed to look into the matter, and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of." Justice Singh authored the judgement.
The petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or writs, direction or directions to the respondents for construction of Pakka Ladder to go up and to come down from the Railway over bridge by its north side located at Takiya village Railway gate which links old G.T. Road Sasaram to Buxer Road N.H. District-Rohtas(Bihar).” Notably, in respect to redressal of his grievance, the petitioner had made a representation to all the respondents, including General Manager, General Manager's Office, East Central Railway, Hajipur, the Respondent No. 3, which was still pending consideration. Respondent no. 5 was Divisional Rail, Manager, Divisional Office, East Central Railway, Pandit Din Dayal Upadhyaya, Chadnauli, (U.P).
In Indal Prasad Yadav vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-Cum-Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar & Ors.(2025), Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court delivered a 3-page long eighteenth judgement authored by Justice Singh on November 10, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"4. In respect of the allegations as levelled in the present writ application, it appears from the records that the respondents have already issued the show cause notices to all the concerned parties, as evident from page-59 onwards of the writ application. 5. Considering the fact that the matter has already been set in motion, it is expected that the respondent authorities shall take all necessary steps to conclude the proceedings and bring the matter to its logical end in the interest of justice. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ application stands disposed of." Justice Singh authored the judgement.
The petitioner had sought the following reliefs: I. The answering respondents, particularly respondent no.8 i.e. the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Dighwara, may kindly be directed to produce action taken report in view of inquiry report submitted vide letter no. 63 dated 30.06.2022, under the signature of the Senior Accounts Officer, Office of Accountant General (Accounts Exam), Bihar, Patna. II. The said authority also may kindly be directed to produce action taken report in view of memo no. 645 dated 26.06.2024, memo no. 520 dated 27.05.2024, memo no.521 dated 27.05.24. memo no. 516, 27.05.24. memo no. 644 dated 26.06.2024, memo no. 515 dated 27.05.2024 etc. at the earliest in the interest of justice. The sequel action also may kindly be directed to be taken against the erring officials/persons/employees in view of the development above said, as misuse of huge public money cannot be overlooked within the four corners of law.
In Ankit Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Singh delivered his nineteenth judgement dated November 11, 2025, wherein he observed:"3. The petitioner had challenged the bid document dated 22.08.2025 issued by the Directorate of ICDS, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar. From perusal of the bid document (Annexure-P/1), it appears that the last date for submission of the bid document was 16.09.2025 and the opening of the technical bid was fixed for 26.09.2025. 4. Considering the fact that the tender process of bid has virtually come to an end, the present writ petition has become infructuous. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous." Justice Singh authored the judgement.
The petitioner had prayed for quashing the impugned Notice Inviting e-Tender, NIT No. ICDS-01/25-26 dated 22.08.2025 issued by the Directorate of ICDS, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, for procurement of utensil sets for 1,15,009 Anganwadi Centers across all 38 districts of Bihar as it may dilutes utensil quality, deletes effective inspection, and permits testing in NABL/private institutions. He had sought direction to the Respondents to issue a fresh tender ensuring Procurement of 304 grade stainless steel utensils with ISI certification, Relaxation of turnover and experience norms for MSMEs, SHGs, and local industries, Inclusion of private sector experience in evaluation, Reintroduction of pre-dispatch inspection to maintain quality, Rational testing mechanisms without disproportionate fees and obligations, Level playing field by widening eligibility beyond OEMs/Resellers.
No comments:
Post a Comment