Supreme Court grants relief to Niraj Kumar, which was denied by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh

In Niraj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed an order dated August 11, 2025 in a case which arose out of a P.S. case 2024 from Ganga bridge Thana, Vaishali. It condoned the delay. The order reads:"In the event of arrest, the petitioner(s) shall be released on bail by the Investigating/arresting officer on such terms and conditions as imposed and found to be just, fair and reasonable." The petitioner has challenged to the judgment and order dated January 29, 2025 passed by the High Court. 

In Niraj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court had passed a 2-page long order dated January 29, 2025 rejecting the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner due to the nature of accusation and gravity of offence. The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 103(1), 61 (2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 

As per the prosecution case on 05.08.2024 at 11.00 AM the petitioner along with other F.I.R., named accused persons called brother of the informant who went in the company of accused persons and on the same day at about 2.30 Pm, informant came to know that his brother was lying on ground in dead condition . With the help of villagers, his brother was rushed to nearby clinic of Sadhusharan Choudhary where he was declared dead. Then , informant raised suspicion that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons in collusion with each other killed brother of informant.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was innocent and was falsely been implicated in the case . Only suspicion has been raised against this petitioner. Informant was no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. There was delay of 4 days in lodging the F.I.R., for which there was no plausible explanation for the same . At best, it was a case of last seen with the deceased. The State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there was specific allegation against the petitioner that he along with other co-accused persons killed the deceased. It was also submitted that it was the petitioner and other co-accused persons who took away the deceased along with them and thereafter deceased was left in dead condition. 

Supreme Court grants relief to Babuddin Mian, Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh had rejected pre-arrest bail application

In Babuddin Mian @ Babu Ali Mian @ Md. Babudin @ Babudin Mian vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih passed a 2-page long order dated August 8, 2025 in a case which arose out of impugned final order dated May 17, 2024 passed by the Patna High Court. Supreme Court's order reads: 'Delay condoned. 2. Issue notice, returnable within four weeks. 3. Till the next date of hearing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with F.I.R./Crime No.75 of 2019 dated 21.09.2019 registered at Police Station Mohammedpur, District Gopal Ganj, Bihar under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, subject to his joining investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating officer.'

In Babuddin Mian @ Babu Ali Mian @ Md. Babudin @ Babudin Mian vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh  of the High Court had a 2-page long order dated May 17, 2024. The petitioner had approached the Court apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC . As per the prosecution case, informant got information that a dead body of unknown woman was lying at Dharavi dam of Amarpura. On getting such information, informant along with police personnel reached the place of incident and prepared inquest report in presence of two independent witnesses and F.I.R., was lodged against unknown persons. The petitioner's counsel had  submitted that petitioner was innocent and had falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion because he happens to be the husband of the deceased. He also submitted that informant was not
an eye witness to the alleged occurrence . At the relevant time, petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence rather he was at Delhi. During course of investigation, it transpired that the victim had gone with two unknown persons on a motorcycle from her house and after that she became traceless and her dead body was found at Dharavi Dam of Amarpura. The counsel for the State had opposed the prayer for bail that petitioner being the husband of the deceased and dead body of the deceased was found at the place far away from her matrimonial house cannot escape from his responsibility. Justice Singh's order reads: '6. Considering the aforesaid facts and gravity of offence against the petitioner, prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is rejected.'

Supreme Court extends time by six months for disposal of trial at Khagaria Court's request

In Anuj Yadav Devi vs. The State Of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and N. K. Singh passed an order dated August 8, 2025. It reads:'A letter has been received from Additional Sessions Judge – II, Khagaria, Bihar forwarded by High Court of Patna, requesting therein to extend the time for six months to dispose of the trial. As prayed for, the time for disposal of the trial is extended by six months. The Miscellaneous Application stands allowed.' The case was taken up by Courts Motion. 

Prior to this in its order dated December 13, 2024, Court's Division Bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar had passed an order which reads: 'We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, taking into consideration the fact that the trial has already begun, we request the Trial court to expedite the hearing and conclude the same within a period of six months from today. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.' This SLP arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated December 8, 2023 passed by Justice Mohit Kumar Shah of Patna High Court.

In Anuj Yadav Devi vs. The State Of Bihar (2023), Justice Shah had passed a 3-page long order dated December 8, 2023. The order reads: 'The present petition is by way of second attempt at the behest of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Khagaria (Mufassil) P.S. Case No.206 of 2018, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 448 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, inasmuch as the earlier prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected by this Court by an order dated 17.01.2023, passed in Cr.Misc.No. 60192 of 2022.' The case of the prosecution, was that on April 4, 2018 at about 5 pm, the petitioner and other co-accused persons had arrived at the house of the informant, snatched ornaments and had taken away the mare and had also asked the informant to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh for release of the mare. For the aforesaid incident, an FIR against the accused persons had been lodged by the mother of the informant on April 6, 2018. Again, on April 7, 2018, at about 6 am, while the brother of the petitioner was returning after attending the call of nature, the petitioner and other co-accused persons armed with rifle surrounded the brother of the informant and as far as the petitioner is concerned, he had fired with a rifle on the right eye of the brother of the informant resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot, whereafter other accused persons had also engaged in overt act. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was languishing in custody since May 12, 2022, but there was no progress in the ongoing trial, hence a sympathetic view be taken for the purposes of grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

Justice Shah's order reads: 'considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the materials available on record this Court finds that not only the petitioner is the main assailant, who had fired gunshots on the brother of the informant, resulting in his instantaneous death, but there is also no change in the circumstances so as to warrant reconsideration of the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, thus I do not find any merit in the present petition, hence the same stands dismissed.' 

Supreme Court stays summon order by Sessions Court endorsed by Justice Rajiv Roy of Patna High Court

In Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan condoned the delay and passed the order staying the order of the Sessiosn Court. The 1-page long order dared August 8, 2025 reads: "In the meantime, the order passed by the Sessions Court summoning the petitioner herein to face the trial shall remain stayed from its operation." 

Earlier, in Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Justice Rajiv Roy of Patna High Court had passed a 4-page long order dated February 15, 2025. The appellant had preferred an appeal for “quashing the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge SC/ST, Bhagalpur passed in Shivnarayanpur, Kahalgaon, P.S. Case No. 451/2019 (G.R. No. 108/2019) offences alleged u/s 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. and 3(i) (2) (s) SC/ST Act. Pending in the Court of III, Additional District and Sessions cum Special Judge, SC/ST, Bhagalpur.”

As per the prosecution story, the informant had alleged that while sitting with his friend at Aanganwari Center at Santhali Tola, in the meantime, the accused persons including one Jaynath Mahto (Mukhiya) came and after abusing and by taking caste name, resorted to assault. This was witnessed by the villagers. As the informant fled away from the scene, the allegation is that certain ornaments were also snatched. This led to the FIR. Subsequently, the matter was investigated whereafter it traveled to the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bhagalpur and after taking note of the FIR as also the witnesses, statement in paragraphs 3, 6 and 7, vide an order dated October 9, 2020, cognizance was taken in the matter. 

The appellant submitted that the occurrence had taken place at Aanganwari Center which is not an open place, an exaggerated version was presented and the Court in that background, erred in taking cognizance which needs interference.

Justice Roy observed: "10. Having heard the parties and perusing the record, a perusal of the FIR would show that the appellant is talking about the Anganwari Center and not the same inside the room. Further, as pointed out learned Spl.P.P. several names of the locals have been incorporated in the FIR who witnessed the occurrence. 11. In that background, the concerned Court was fully justified in taking up the matter and passing an order of cognizance against the appellant. 12. In that background, no interference is required. 13. Both the Interlocutory Application as well as present appeal stand dismissed."

Supreme Court sets aside bail rejection order by Justice Satyavrat Verma

In Uday Pratap Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan passed a 5-page long order dated August 8, 2025 setting aside the 2-page long order dated  April 4, 2025 by Justice Satyavrat Verma of Patna High Court in Uday Pratap Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2025). Justice Verma had rejected the second anticipatory bail application of the petitioner who apprehend his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 

The Supreme Court's order arose from appeal which arose out of crime registered pursuant to FIR No.36 of 2023 dated August 2, 2023 lodged with Police Station Sub Division Sadar, District Aurangabad, Bihar. Apprehending arrest in connection with the said crime, the appellant had preferred anticipatory bail petition before the Additional Sessions Judge-X, Aurangabad which was rejected by order dated November 3, 2023. The appellant had preferred another anticipatory bail application before the same court, which was again rejected by order dated November 16, 2024. Thereafter, the appellant sought anticipatory bail from the High Court, which was also rejected. By order dated May 26, 2025, while issuing notice, Supreme Court had granted interim protection in favour of the appellant. The Court observed: "The appellant is seeking relief on the principle of parity since his wife and daughter have been granted the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, he submitted that the interim protection granted by this Court vide interim order dated 26.05.2025 may be made absolute, subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court....Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail claimed....We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 04.04.2025."

In Uday Pratap Singh & Ors.vs. The State of Bihar (2024) Justice Verma's 3-page long order dated May 6, 2024, had dismissed the first anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. The other petitioners were Pushpa Singh and Priya Kumari @ Priya. The order recorded that notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. was issued to Uday Pratap Singh, the petitioner no. 1, based on which, he appeared before the police but then he "tore the notice in presence of the investigating officer for which a case under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C." was instituted.

It also recorded that  Pushpa Singh and Priya Kumari, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law. It was two married sister-in-laws were granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by order dated May 6, 2024 in Neha Singh @ Neha & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 83934 of 2023). It was also submitted that privilege of anticipatory bail was granted to the married sister-in-laws on merit. Seeking parity, the counsel submitted that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 be also granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. 

Neha Singh and Divya Singh, the petitioners who were granted anticipatory bail, had submitted that the informant had falsely implicated them in order to coerce their brother into submission. Although the informant alleged that on alarm, neighbours came, but then name of the neighbours was not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. 

Justice Verma's 3-page long order noted that the APP of the State and the counsel appearing on behalf of the informant were  not in a position to rebut the submission by the petitioners' counsel that the name of the neighbours was not disclosed in the FIR and petitioners were married sister-in-laws and resides separately. 

 

Supreme Court adjudicates case of "a deeply anguished Judge of the Allahabad High Court"

In XXX v. Union of India (Diary No. 38664/2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih dismissed the writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the in-house procedure and its outcome, including the recommendation forwarded by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.  It observed, “The challenge on the ground that it violates Articles 214 and 217 of the Constitution is without merit.” The Court's judgment reads:“The allegation that the Chief Justice of India or the Committee acted in deviation from the prescribed procedure is incorrect. The process was meticulously followed, except for the non-uploading of videos, which was not raised as a grievance.” The observed: “It is not unconstitutional for the Chief Justice of India to forward the report to the President.” The court noted, “The contention that the petitioner was not heard holds no weight, as personal hearing is not part of the procedure and was not required.” It also rejected petition filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara seeking a criminal investigation. 

Earlier, Chief Justice of India, B. R. Gavai on July 23, 2025, recused himself from hearing the challenge filed by Justice Yashwant Varma against the in-house inquiry and the recommendation for his removal, stating, “I was part of the conversation.” 

On July 30, the Court had reserved its judgment in the matter. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued, “This so-called in-house procedure is not backed by statute or the Constitution... What is the source of power?” Justice Datta questioned the delay in challenging the report, observing, “You wait for the inquiry to be over. You wait for the finding. Then you challenge it. That shows something,” and added, “This is not a decision. This is a recommendation. There is a difference.” The Court also warned Advocate Mathews Nedumpara against misleading it by accessing a confidential report: “We will be compelled to take action if you have misled the Court."

Justice Varma had approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the findings of the in-house committee and the recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna following the alleged recovery of charred high-denomination notes from his official residence in March 2025. In his petition, Justice Varma had submitted that he was not present in Delhi during the fire and had no knowledge of any cash. The inquiry process violated natural justice, denied him a hearing, reversed the burden of proof, and operated without a formal complaint.Such proceedings bypass Parliament’s role under Articles 124 and 218. He had prayed to the Supreme Court to declare that in-house committee’s report and the recommendation dated May 8, 2025 be declared unconstitutional and void.

Justice Sudhir Singh led bench upholds verdict by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan, resusing to interfere with State govt's policy decision

In Payal Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Sudhir Singh and Ramesh Chand Malviya delivered a 10-page long judgement dated July 5, 2025 dismissing the petition.The judgement authored by Justice Singh reads:"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The only question that arises for consideration by this Court is whether the order passed by interference. 10. We find no valid reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Fixation of salary and grant of pay scale in service is a matter of policy to be decided by the employer, i.e., the State Government, and this Court should not interfere in such policy decisions....11. It is a settled position of law that the terms and conditions of service are to be governed by either the advertisement or the appointment letter, subject to not being in contravention to any statutory rules or circulars having statutory force. Therefore, in the present case, the issue of entitlement of salary/pay scale is to be governed by approval of appointment made by the Director, Secondary Education. 12. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal, and the same is dismissed." 

In Payal Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2024), Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan had delivered a 15-page long judgement dated March 14, 2024. Justice Sharan concluded: "14. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, argument of the parties and from perusal of the records it is fact that the fixation of salary etc., is the policy decision of the State Government and the Court is not in a position to interfere in the policy decision of the Government, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed."  The petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash that part of the order contained in letter no. 768 dated 10.09.2014 issued by the Director Secondary Education Bihar, basing himself on Education Department Memo no.921 dated 8.8.2013, to the extent it directs fixation of salary of teachers appointed in aided minority schools on par with teachers appointed in Govt taken over schools under the Teacher appointment Rules 2006. She had prayed for quashing the Department Resolution /order contained in Education Department Memo No. 921 dated 8-8-2013 in that it, wholly ignoring the nature of appointment made against existing vacancy in sanctioned existing post and directing fixation of pay of teachers appointed in minority schools on par with Niyojan teachers appointed under Teacher appointment Rules 2006 as it infringes right of minorities under article 30 of the
Constitution of India. She wanted the state Respondents to re-fix the pay scale of the petitioner under the 6th pay scale as applicable to the Assistant Teachers appointed against vacancy in sanctioned post of teachers in aided Minority Secondary Schools which is to be on par with the pay scale of assistant teachers under regular appointment against post of teachers in Government Secondary Schools. She sought a direction to the state respondents to pay the Arrears of salary due to the petitioner from April 2, 2012 the date of appointment of petitioner up to date with interest for the period of delay in actual payment.

In Amber Imam Hashmi v. The State of Bihar & Anr. Criminal Miscellaneous No.43259 of 2025, Patna High Court's, Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha observed:"....there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned orders as passed by learned trial court, accordingly the present quashing petitions stand dismissed being devoid of any merit. 28. The speedy trial is not the right of the accused only, it is also the right of the victim also. However, by taking guiding note of the Nathilal case (supra), the cross case which was lodged for the same occurrence as Bishanpur P.S. case No. 57 of 1994, by petitioners side for which the Sessions Trial No. 395 of 1998 is pending before the Court of Additional Session Judge VII, Darbhanga/ or in any other court shall be transferred to the Court of Additional Session Judge III, Darbhanga, where the present case is pending and to proceed accordingly." In Nathi Lal and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Anr reported in 1990 Supp SCC 145, the Supreme Court reiterated in State of M.P. vs. Mishrilal and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 4089, 

The Court in Nathilal vs. State of U.P. pointed out the procedure to be followed by the Trial Court in the event of cross cases. It was observed thus:-

"We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other."

In the instant case the quashing petition preferred under Section 528 and 529 of the Bhartiya Nagarikl) Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying for quashing of the order dated June 20, 2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga, in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1999/ registration no. 3038 of 2014, arising out of Bishanpur P.S. Case No 58 of 1994 for petitioner namely, Amber Imam Hashmi and quashing of the order dated June 20, 2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga, in Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2010/ registration no. 3037 of 2014, arising out of Bishanpur P.S. Case No 58 of 1994 for petitioner namely, Kausar Imam Hashmi. Both petitioners /accused had preferred application before trial court for their representation under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which was rejected through impugned order and thereafter the bail bond of both petitioners was canceled, subsequent to that the accused petitioner, namely, Amber Imam Hashmi ( of Cr.

Misc. No. 43259 of 2025) who was present in court, was taken into custody and remanded to jail, whereas the NBW was issued against another accused /petitioner, namely Kausar Imam Hashmi (of Cr. Misc No. 43260 of

2025). Both accused petitioners are active practitioners of the District Civil Court, Darbhanga.

As a matter of subsequent development the

accused petitioner, namely, Amber Imam Hashmi was granted provisional bail vide order dated June 24, 2025 by trial court, whereas the execution of NBW qua accused petitioner, namely, Kausar Imam Hashmi, was stayed provisionally till June 27, 2025. These orders were also challenged saying trial court out of its biased approach inserted some onerous condition.

The counsel for the petitioners had prayed for the quashing of certain remarks while granting provisional bail to the petitioner namely, Amber Imam Hashmi, and also certain

observations made by the learned trial court because it appeared contemptuous and were imposed with a biased approach. It was also prayed that these prayers were raised

through I.A. No. 01 of 2025 as preferred in both the petitions separately. To understand the factual background, it is important to mention that for the crime in question, two separate FIRs were lodged. The first FIR was Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 57 of 1994 lodged by the petitioners side, in counter to which Bishanpur P.S. Case

No. 58 of 1994 was lodged, where the petitioners are accused. Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 58 of 1994 was lodged for the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Cr.P.C. alongwith other allied sections of IPC along with Arms Act, which later on converted to 302 of IPC. For Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 57 of 1994, Sessions Trial no.

395 of 1998 is pending before the court of District and Additional Sessions Judge VII, Darbhanga.

6. To understand the factual aspects for

preferring the present criminal quashing petition, it would be apposite to reproduce the order dated June 20, 2025 as

passed in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1999 by  Additional Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga. 

There were a total six accused persons facing trial in the present case. Originally, there were total 12 accused persons. One more sessions trial being Sessions Trial No. 320/2010 (CIS 3037/2014) stands separated from this trial. There is representation under section 317 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 on behalf of the accused Amber Imam Hashmi, Raja Hashmi, Anjar Hussian and Mobin Hashmi. So far as the accused Ishmat Belal Hashmi and Jasim Nadaf are concerned, counsel for co-accused submits that they have died and in due course,

death certificate would be filed on or before the next date. So, now this case is for trial of four accused persons namely (1) Amber Imam Hashni (2) Raja Hashmi (3) Anjar Hashmi and (4) Mobin Hashmi subject to confirmation of death of co-accused persons. (ii) The accused Amber Imam Hashmi is an advocate of Darbhanga Bar Association. He appeared just after

about 01 hour from the time of filing representation for arguing in another case. 

The Court observed:"The record of this case speaks volume about the fact that all possible effort has been taken by the accused to delay the trial of this & case. In this regard, it would be sufficient to place on record that the

Hon'ble Court vide its order Judgement dated 21-04-2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.

27216/2004 had been pleased to direct the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. Para 5 of rejected judgement read as" since in this case discharge petition was rejected long back on July 3, 2004, while dismissing the present petition, it is desirable to direct  court below to proceed with the case expeditiously, so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. While proceeding with the case, trial judge is required to take up this matter at

least thrice in a week. Office is directed to

communicate this order to the court below forthwith for its strict compliance." 

Further, the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 16-04-2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44013 of 2012 had been pleased to observe "Since the criminal case was lodged way back in the year 1994 and since then more than 20 years

have already elapsed, therefore, the learned trial court is further directed to take up the trial of the accused persons on priority basis and make all endeavours to conclude the same at an early date preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order. The learned trial court shall not grant unnecessary & case.

In this regard, it would be sufficient to place on record that the Hon'ble Court vide its order Judgement dated 21-04-2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27216/2004 had been pleased to direct the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. Para 5 of the said judgement read as" since in this case discharge petition

was rejected long back on 03-07-2004, while

dismissing the present petition, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously, so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. While proceeding with the case, learned trial judge is required to take up this matter at least thrice in a week. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below forthwith for

its strict compliance." Further, the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 16-04-2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44013 of 2012 had been pleased to observe "Since the criminal case was lodged way back in the year 1994 and since then more than 20 years have already elapsed, therefore, the learned trial court is further directed to take up the trial of the accused

persons on priority basis and make all endeavours to conclude the same at an early date preferably within a period of six months from the date ofreceipt/production of a copy of the present order. The learned trial court shall not grant unnecessary a  adjournment merely on asking either on behalf of the prosecution or on behalf of the defence." 

(iv) It is also appropriate to mention here that no stone has been left unturned to malign the Judicial Officer whoever took up this case and just to delay it either by the accused Amber Imam Hashmi or co-accused Kaushar Imam Hashmi. In this regard, Order dated 02-

06-2014, 06-06-20214 and 16-06-2014 passed by

then District Judge, Darbhanga is quite relevant to refer to which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Court on being challenged. The then learned District Judge, Darbhanga vide its order dated 06-06-2014 had been pleased to observe vide para 5 that " Considering the aforesaid facts and also considering the submissions of the learned Incharge PP and also the accused Kaushar Imam Hashmi, one application which was filed on 03-06-2014 by the co-accused Amber Imam Hashmi is not maintainable and hereby rejected. The another application dated 03-06-2014 was filed by the accused Kaushar Imam Hashmi is only with a view to cast aspersion on judiciary. The accused persons are really

acting against the interest of administration of justice. The application dated 03-06-2014 filed by the accused in which false and malicious statement made by them amount to scandalising the court and undermining the majesty of justice and therefore, the application dated 03-06-2014 filed by the accused Kaushar Imam Hashmi is hereby rejected. 

The proceedings of the trial of the present case shall be continued from day to day until all the prosecution witnesses in attendance have

ben examined, irrespective of any hurdles that may be created by the accused persons." The conduct as mentioned in the order is just a tip of iceberg. It is an important to note that even the matters get delayed till date. (v) One more surprising thing which has been noticed by this court that records of this court stands manipulated. It appears that manipulation by putting blade cut on postmortem report is quite evident. Who did it and when it was done is a matter of inquiry because this records got transferred between several court and passes through hands of different office clerk

in the last several years but the possibility of

involvement of the accused cannot be ruled out for the reason that he is an ultimate beneficiary of such manipulation to delay the trial. This court would make endeavour to have second copy from the DMCH, Darbhanga as early as possible.

(vi) The profile of the accused is also needs to be taken into consideration. He is an advocate for the last 40 years. His two brothers are also practising lawyer in this court. One of them died during pendency of the case as submitted across the bench. They are highly influential. At least, the accused Amber Imam Hashmi is concerned, he does not hesitate to make unbecoming

behaviour contrary to the normal practice in the court room.

(vii) Now, once after filing representation, the accused Amber Imam Hashmi appeared in the court. This court ask him as to why he is ready to argue in another case and has filed representation in his own case. This court

further asked to at least go the dock and show respect to this court. He did not move from his chair. Even after repeated request, he did not go. He even tried to go from the court without following the order made by this court.

(viii) The present matter is old one. This needs to be disposed of quickly as per direction of the Hon'ble Court. This court is of the view that without taking the accused Amber Imam Hashmi into custody, the trial of 

In Neha Agrawal vs. Sumit Agrawal S/o Late Ashok Agrawal (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy passed a 14-page long judgment dated 31, 2025 dismissed the petition of Neha Agrawal, the petitioner in person and who had filed the application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for modification of paragraph nos. 17(ii) and (iv) of the judgment dated November 29, 2024. Her application reads:“That the instant application has been filed before this Hon’ble Court with a prayer to Modify the paragraphs 17(ii) & (iv) of the Order dated 29.11.2014 (sic) and extend the time period to cross examine the PW 1 to 3 and file the list of witness till August-September, 2025.”

The petitioner and respondent were married on November 7, 2014 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Immediately after marriage, differences arose between the parties which led to filing of criminal cases and the respondent on September 30, 2016 filed a divorce case in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, which was registered as Matrimonial Case no.1044 of 2016, praying that the marriage tie between the parties be annulled by a decree of divorce and for other reliefs. The petitioner had appeared in the matrimonial case and had filed her written statement.

The respondent being aggrieved with the delay in disposal of the matrimonial case moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution in civil miscellaneous jurisdiction of 2021, for a direction to the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna to expedite and dispose of matrimonial case of 2016. 

After hearing the parties, the Court by it's order dated December 3, 2021 was pleased to dispose it directing the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna to make every endeavor to dispose of the divorce case as expeditiously as possible subject to any legal or procedural impediment.

The matrimonial case was being adjourned on one ground or the other, the respondent filed in 023 in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for modification of the order dated December 3, 2021. It was stated that in the divorce case of the 2016, on filing of the written statement and the reconciliation having failed, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent on May 4, 2019, May 28, 2019 and December 15, 2021, the suit was not progressing. She prayed that the order dated December 3, 2021 passed in CM no.269 of ,2021) be modified and time be fixed for disposal of matrimonial case of 2016 within a period of 3-4 months or as deemed fit/reasonable by the Court.

In MJC no.1804 of 2023, by order dated March 1, 2024, taking note of the fact that the divorce case was still pending inspite of the directions of this Court vide its order dated December 3, 2021 in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction no.269 of 2021, the evidence of plaintiff had already concluded and the suit was running at the stage of the evidence of the defendant, the High Court directed the Family Court to provide opportunity of three dates to the defendant to conclude their evidence and tocM cnclude the divorce suit within a period of 3 months. By order dated May 1, 2024, taking note of submission of the petitioner, the Court also directed the Family Court to ensure that the remaining dues of the ad interim maintenance is paid and the application under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. was also decided expeditiously. With these directions as also reiterating to ensure compliance of the order dated March 1, 2024, MJC no.1804 of 2023 was disposed of.

In the meantime,Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction no.451 of 2019 had been preferred by the petitioner in the High Court challenging the order dated May 26, 2018 of the Family Court passed in Matrimonial Case no.1044 of 2016, whereby interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month had been fixed besides one time litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.1,50,000/- as litigation cost.

The petitioner had also filed MJC no.3439 of 2024 for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for not producing his income tax returns inspite of the directions of the Court.

All the three cases i.e. LPA no.490 of 2024, Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction no.451 of 2019 and MJC no.3439 of 2024 were heard analogous and while LPA no.490 of 2024 was disposed of, the other two cases Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction no.451 of 2019 and MJC no.3439 of 2024 were directed to be posted before the learned Single Judge having roster. Relevant portion of the order dated November 29, 2024 reads: "“17. In the context of the above facts noticed, we are of the opinion that the appeal can be disposed of with the following directions:

(i) As undertaken by the husband, the Income Tax returns from the financial year 2015-16 shall be produced in C. Misc. No. 451 of 2019, where he is the respondent, within a period of ten days from today. The learned Single Judge would also be entitled to look into whether the interim maintenance as already ordered has been paid up to date and issue directions to that end.

(ii) Insofar as the divorce case is concerned, the husband’s undertaking that his witnesses will be produced is recorded. The husband shall file a schedule of dates for appearance of the witnesses, on any date, commencing from the first week of January, 2025, with P.Ws. No. 1, 2 and 3 appearing within ten days of each. The said schedule shall be filed before the Additional Family Court on or before 16.12.2024, on which date, the divorce case shall be posted peremptorily, by the Additional Family Court. Both the parties or their Counsel shall be present before Court. Before the learned Family Court, the respondent-wife shall also be heard insofar as her convenience with reference to the dates on which P.Ws. No. 1 to 3 are to be cross-examined and suitable adjustments shall be made; but however, ensuring that all the three witnesses are cross-examined on or before February, 2025. The application before the learned Family Court for recall of the witnesses will stand disposed of as per our directions hereinabove.

(iii) Insofar as the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., the Additional Family Court, Patna, shall ensure that appropriate proceedings are taken, after hearing both the parties, if necessary, transmitting the case to the Jurisdictional Magistrate on satisfaction of the Additional Family Court.

(iv) After the cross-examination of P.Ws. No. 1, 2 and 3, the wife, opposite parry in the divorce case shall also produce a schedule of witnesses to be examined, before the Additional Family Court, Patna, on any date on the first week of February, 2025 as fixed by the Additional Family Court. After hearing both the parties, and ascertaining the convenience of the husband the Additional Family Court shall fix a schedule of examination of witnesses of the opposite party, which shall be scrupulously complied with by both the parties.

18. With the above observations and directions, we dispose of the present appeal and we make it clear that once the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., is disposed off and if a criminal case is directed to be registered by the Additional Family Court, then necessarily, the divorce case shall be disposed of in accordance with our directions hereinabove, without waiting for conclusion of the criminal case. 

19. The contempt case, as of now, stands closed. If the Income Tax returns are not filed in accordance with the undertaking made herein, it shall stand restored before us, on an application filed by the appellant-wife. 

20. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae.

21. LPA No. 490 of 2024 is disposed off. CWJC No.451 of 2019 and MJC No. 3439 of 2024 are directed to be posted before the learned Single Judge having roster.”

12. It is paragraph nos. 17(ii) and (iv) of the order dated 29.11.2024, of which modification is sought by the petitioner in the instant application. 

It was submitted by the petitioner that having been thrown out by the respondent while she was living with her aged and ailing parents in Kolkata, the respondent besides filing criminal cases with bogus allegations against her as also her parents, has filed the divorce case concealing material facts and making false representations therein. It was submitted that the respondent is not cooperating in the criminal case filed by the petitioner and has been praying for expeditious disposal of the false divorce case. She has also filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the divorce case which is still pending. As a result of false statements, a proceeding under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. has also been initiated against him. It was further submitted by the petitioner appearing in person that PW-1 and PW-2, who have made incorrect statements, were discharged without crossexamination. Subsequent to the directions of this Court, the petitioner appeared in the learned Family Court and crossexamined PW-1 partly on 10.1.2025, however the crossexamination could not be concluded due to paucity of time. The petitioner having ‘fallen extremely unwell’ prayed for cross-examination of PW-1 via video conferencing on 28.1.2025, not being aware that he had already been discharged. Though the next date was orally fixed for 30.1.2025, due to technical difficulties, PW-2 and PW-3 were also not cross-examined and evidence of plaintiff (respondent herein) was closed on 29.1.2025 itself instead of 30.1.2025. It was submitted by the petitioner in person that for the ends of justice, the order dated November 29, 2024 be modified and the time granted therein for crossexamination etc. be extended till August-September, 2025.

The respondent's counsel referred to the contents of the counter affidavit and submitted that the matrimonial case was filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) in the year 2016, wherein the petitioner had filed her written statement in October, 2017. Two witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff were examined on May 4, 2019 and May 28, 2019. PW-2 was discharged only after six months wherein 14 dates were given to the petitioner to cross-examine him. PW-3 was examined on 15.12.2021 and once again, the petitioner not having cross-examined him, inspite of 15 months having passed wherein the case was listed on 17 dates, he was discharged on Marvh 13, 2023. He submitted that repeated directions have been given by this Court in different cases to conclude the divorce case, however the petitioner did not permit the case to proceed. It was finally by order dated November 29, 2024 passed in LPA no.490 of 2024 that specific directions were given to both the parties as also to the Court below, however the petitioner has still not permitted the case to conclude and instead has moved this Court for modification of the said order. Learned counsel submits that no case of modification has been made out, there is no merit in the instant application and the same be dismissed.

The High Court found that matrimonial case no.1044 of 2016 was filed by the respondent, wherein after filing of the written statement by the petitioner, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff (respondent herein) on May 4, 2019, May 28, 2019 and December 15, 2021. The matrimonial case not progressing satisfactorily, the respondent filed Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction no.269 of 2021, wherein by order dated December 3, 2021, the High Court directed the Family Court, Patna to expedite the disposal of the divorce case. The relevant portion of the order dated December 3, 2021 is as follows :-

“On the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna is directed to take every endeavor to dispose of the divorce case as expeditiously as possible, subject to any legal or lrocedural impediment.”

It noted that subsequently, MJC no.1804 of 2023 was preferred by the respondent in this Court praying for modification of the order dated December 3, 2021 (passed in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction no.269 of 2021) and praying that the deadline for disposal of the matrimonial case be fixed by this Court. The High Court was pleased to pass order dated March 1, 2024 in MJC no.1804 of 2023, wherein it directed as follows:-

“It is directed that the divorce suit shall be concluded within a period of three months.”

The MJC no.1804 of 2023 was disposed of on May 1, 2024, wherein High Court once again directed that the Court below shall ensure the compliance of the order dated March 1, 2024, quoted above.

The LPA no.490 of 2024 having was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated May 1, 2024 passed in MJC no.1804 of 2023, High Court was pleased to dispose of the present appeal by order dated November 29, 2024 giving directions in paragraph no.17, as stated/quoted above. The petitioner in this application has prayed for modification of paragraph nos.17(ii) and (iv). 

In paragraph nos. 17(ii) and (iv), High Court had directed that the husband (respondent herein) shall file as schedule of dates for appearance of the witnesses to be crossexamined by the wife (petitioner herein). The cross-examination by the wife was to be completed on or before February, 2025, whereafter, the wife was directed to produce a schedule of witnesses to be examined on any date in the first week of February, 2025 and the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses had to be completed by both the parties as fixed by the Family Court.

21. On perusal of the contents of the uncontroverted counter affidavit of the respondent and the order-sheet of the learned Court below brought on record therein it transpires that the learned Additional Principal Judge finalised the dates of cross-examination of the three witnesses of the plaintiff on 10.1.2025, 20.1.2025 and 29.1.2025. PW-1 was cross-examined by the wife/petitioner/defendant from 11 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., but the cross-examination did not end. However, thereafter, she did not appear to cross-examine the witness on 13.1.2025, 15.1.2025, 18.1.2025 and also on 20.1.2025, on which date PW-1 was discharged. Similarly, the petitioner did not appear to cross-examine PW-2 on 23.1.2025 and 28.1.2025 nor did she appear to cross-examine PW-3 on 29.1.2025 and both PW-2 and PW-3 were also discharged. The Court is further informed that the arguments have also concluded.

22. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, dealt with in much detail herein above, the Court is of the opinion that there is no ambiguity in the order dated 29.11.2024, nor in paragraph nos.17(ii) and (iv) thereof, modification of which is sought in the instant application. It is also not the case of the petitioner that there is any error in the order. In the opinion of the Court, what the petitioner seeks is rehearing of the original application and praying for further extension of the time granted for cross-examination of the witnesses of theplaintiff.

23. At the cost of repetition, it would be relevant to keep in mind that this Court in various applications has been giving directions for expediting the disposal of the matrimonial case. Orders dated 3.12.2021 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction no. 269 of 2021, dated 1.3.2024 passed in MJC no. 1804 of 2023 and dated 29.11.2024 passed in LPA no.490 of 2024, relevant portions of which have been quoted herein above, may be referred to.

24. The petitioner has not made out a case for modification of paragraph nos. 17(ii) and (iv) of the order dated 29.11.2024 passed in LPA no.490 of 2024.

25. The Court finds no merit in the instant application and the same is dismissed.

 

Earlier, in Sumit Agrawal vs. Neha Agrawal (2021) Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.269 of 2021, Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court passed a 3-page long order dated December 3, 2021, wherein he recorded: "It appears that the petitioner as well as the respondent both wants speedy disposal of the case but, at the same time, the disposal of the petitions filed by the respondent is also necessary for the ends of justice." It was also noted that Sumit Agrawal, the petitioner/plaintiff a resident of Patna had filed a suit for divorce as matrimonial (divorce) Suit No. 1044 of 2016. Neha Agrawal, the respondent had appeared in 2016 and filed her written statement in October, 2017.  She had submitted that she has filed some petitions which are still to be disposed of by the Principal Judge, Family Court and for the ends of justice, those applications are necessary to be disposed of. Justice Pandey observed:"....the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna is directed to take every endeavor to dispose of the divorce case as expeditiously as possible, subject to any legal or procedural impediment." The case was filed on April 16, 2021 and registered on June 15, 2021. The respondent, a resident of Kolkata had appeared in person. 

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1804 of 2023 was filed in Sumit Agrawal vs. Neha Agrawal (2021) Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.269 of 2021 on July 6, 2023 before Justice Pandey by the petitioner. It was registered on July 11, 2023. The Court's 2-page long order dated December 8, 2023 recorded the petitioner's submission that "despite the order of this court, the trial court is not taking endeavour to dispose of the case expeditiously." It also recorded that the petitioner was "abusing the process of the court and delaying disposal of the divorce case." She submitted that it was not her fault in expeditious disposal of the case. By 1-page long order dated February 16, 2024, Justice Pandey directed the court below "to send the xerox copy of the entire order sheets of the Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit No. 1044 of 2016 within a period of two weeks." Justice Pandey's 2-page long order dated March 1, 2024 recorded the petitioner's submission that he was regularly paying maintenance amount to the Opposite Party whereas, she, through video conferencing submitted that the petitioner is not paying maintenance amount to her. The Court directed the court below to verify and send a report in this regard. The Court recalled that vide order dated December 3, 2021 in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 269 of 2021, Justice Pandey had directed the court below to dispose of this matter expeditiously, but still it is pending. The record is running at the stage of the evidence of the defendant, as the evidence of the plaintiff has already been concluded. He directed the court below "to provide an opportunity of three dates to the defendant to conclude her evidence. Thereafter, no opportunity shall be provided. It is directed that the divorce suit shall be concluded within a period of three months. 6. The required report of the court below about payment of maintenance amount shall reach to this Court within a period of two weeks." Disposing the application, the 2-page order dated May 1, 2024 by Justice Pandey reads: "7. Learned Principal Judge Family Court, Patna shall ensure that the remaining dues of as interim maintenance be paid to the opposite party within the assured period by the petitioner and the learned Principal Judge Family Court shall also make endeavour to dispose of the application under Section 340 of the CrPC as expeditiously as possible. The learned court below shall also ensure the compliance of order dated 01.03.2024 passed by this Court." The civil miscellaneous application was filed on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer for direction to the court below for expeditious disposal of Matrimonial Case No. 1044/2016 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. Neha Agarwal had submitted that she had filed an application under Section 340 of CrPC which is still pending before the Principal Judge Family Court and it should also be decided expeditiously. She informed that the interim maintenance awarded by the courts was not regularly being paid to her. The appellant had submitted that whatever dues are remained to be paid, shall be paid within a period of fifteen days.

The Letters Patent Appeal No.490 of 2024 was filed in Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1804 of 2023 on May 9, 2024 which was registered on May 10, 2024. It was heard by the High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar. The High Court's 2-page long order dated June 26, 2024, appointed Satyabir Bharti, as Legal Aid Counsel for Neha Agrawal, the appellant. The order reads: "3. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna shall send a report as to the stage of proceedings in Matrimonial Suit No. 1044/2016. It shall also specifically inform this Court as to whether the amounts, as directed in the impugned order dated 01.05.2024 in M.J.C.No. 1804 of 2023, has been paid within time. If it has been paid, the amount shall be disbursed to the appellant....5. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna shall not proceed with the matter until further orders." The Court's 2-page long order dated July 18, 2024 reads: "As directed vide order dated 26.06.2024, the report of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna has not been received till date. Registry is directed to take steps so that the report is received before the next date." By order dated August 13, 2024, the Civil Misc. No. 451 of 2019 was tagged with Letters Patent Appeal No.490 of 2024 in Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1804 of 2023. By order dated October 23, 2024, MJC No. 3439 of 2024 was tagged. The order dated December 9, reads: "These cases have been placed under the heading ‘To Be mentioned’ at the instance of the office pointing out that in paragraph no. 21 of the judgment dated 29.11.2024 ‘CWJC No. 451 of 2019’ has been inadvertently typed in place of ‘Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 451 of 2019’. 2. In such view of the matter, in paragraph no. 21 of judgment dated 29.11.2024 ‘Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 451 of 2019’ shall be read in place of ‘CWJC No. 451 of 2019’. 3. The judgment dated 29.11.2024 is modified to the extent indicated above."

 

 

Chief Justice Pancholi led bench dismisses a Publinc Interest Litifgation

In Ganesh Pandey & Anr. vs .The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna.Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy passed an 7-page long judgement dated July 25, 2025. The 8th order by Justice Pancholi as Chief Justice reads:"we are of the view that the concerned respondent authority has already conducted the enquiry pursuant to the application/complaint submitted by Rekha Devi against Dr. Seema Saroj and when the final order has been passed by the competent authority, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. 14. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed."

The petitioner had mainly prayed that the respondents be directed to enquire through independent agency in respect of defalcation of public money by Dr. Seema Saroj, Prabhari Chikitsa Padadhikari, Primary Health Centre, Vaishali. His counsel contended that one Dr. Seema Saroj is working as Prabhari Chikitsa Padadhikari at Primary Health Centre, Vaishali since last 12 years i.e. from the year 2013. It was further contended that said Dr. Seema Saroj, Prabhari Chikitsa Padadhikari, Primary Health Centre, Vaishali had defalcated more than Rs. 10,66,74,394/- by misconducting and mismanaging the payment of outsourcing employees and, therefore, one Rekha Devi sent various type of applications to the concern d respondent
authorities for making necessary enquiry against said Dr. Seema Saroj. 

Patna High Court directs DM Bhagalpur to decide prayer for not constructing the Panchayat Bhawan

In Animesh Kumar & Anr. vs .The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna.Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy passed an 4-page long judgement dated July 25, 2025. The 7th order by Justice Pancholi as Chief Justice reads:"Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that if the petitioners submit a representation within a period of two weeks from today before the concerned respondent authority, the concerned respondent authority shall decide the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 8. It is clarified that we have not examined the case of the petitioners on merits."

The petitioners had prayed that respondent no. 3 be directed not to construct the Panchayat Bhawan at the Panchayat village i.e. head village of Panchayat, namely, Chandpur Panchayat within the Jagidshpur Block, District – Bhagalpur as earlier there was proposal for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at Panchayat – Chandpur, Mauza –Chandpur, Thana No. 264, Khata No. 369, Kheshra No. 796, area 50 decimal of land. The respondent no.3 was the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Bhagalpur. 

Patna High Court directs DM , Bhojpur to decide representation for construction of Gram Panchayat Raj Bhawan

In Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy passed an 4-page long order dated July 25, 2025. The 6th order by Justice Pancholi as Chief Justice reads:"5....The limited grievances of the petitioner, at this stage, is that the representation made by him has not been considered by the concerned respondent authority till date and, therefore, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondent no. 4/the District Magistrate, Bhojpur to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. 6. It is clarified that we have not examined the case of the petitioners on merits."  The respondent no. 4 is the District Magistrate, Bhojpur.

The petitioner had prayed that the respondents be directed to construct Gram Panchayat Raj Bhawan at Gram Panchayat Sarathua, Udwant Nagar, Bhojpur at Khata No. 914, Khesara No. 688, having area 4 acres 78 decimal. The petitioner had also prayed that the respondents be directed not to start construction work of Gram Panchayat Raj Bhawan Sarathua, Udwant Nagar, Bhojpur at Khata No. 914, Khesara No. 687, Area – 40 decimal.  The Advocate General had contended that it was for the elected body to consider and decide as to where such Panchayat Bhawan has to be constructed. 

Supreme Court directs Patna High Court 's Registrar General, Registrar (Judicial) to list PMC Mayor Sita Sahu's case before Division Bench on August 4

In Sita Sahu & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Suryakant and Joyamalya Bagchi passed a 3-page long order dated August 1, 2025 directing Patna High Court's Registrar General to put up its order before the Chief Justice of the High Court for his information and to enable him to issue necessary instructions to the Court's Registry. The Court directed High Court's Registrar General and Registrar (Judicial) "to scrutinise the writ petition stated to have been filed by the petitioners by tomorrow (02.08.2025) and inform the counsel for the petitioners to cure the defects, if any, by tomorrow 5:00 PM. Thereafter, the writ petition is to be listed as per the roster before a Division Bench of the High Court on 04.08.2025." Sita Sahu et al had filed the case in the Supreme Court on July 28, 2025. It was registered on July 30, 2025 and verified on July 31, 2025. The other eight respondents are: the Principal Secretary, Secretary, Department of Home, Director General of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police, Municipal Commissioner, Prakash Sharma, Rajesh Kumar and Rahul Thakur.

The writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court was under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction for independent enquiry into the conduct of the Police Authorities, who are alleged to have illegally raided the residence of the first petitioner in midnight without any authority of law. 

Sita Sahu, the petitioner no.1 is the Mayor of the Patna Municipal Corporation (PMC). It was alleged that the impugned coercive action was an outcome of the difference of opinion between Sita Sahu, the petitioner no.1 –Mayor on one hand and the Municipal Commissioner, who is a bureaucrat, on the other hand. FIR No.207/2025 dated April 5 2025 was registered against Shishir Kumar, the petitioner no.2 by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, and FIR No.403/2025 dated July 11, 2025 was registered against both the petitioners by one of the Ward Councillors of the PMC. It was claimed that post the registration of these two FIRs, illegal raids were conducted at the residence of the first petitioner on July 12, 2025 and again thereafter. The Police Station Case was registered July 11, 2025.

The aggrieved petitioners had filed a writ petition before the High Court on July 15, 2025, but till date only CR-WJC No.1850/2025 was assigned. It was also alleged that despite mentioning, the Registry of the High Court did not take any step for listing of the writ petition.

Supreme Court observed:"5. Since the controversy has erupted at Patna, where the seat of the High Court is also located, we are of the view that the High Court will be in a better position to initiate swift or prompt action, as may be required in accordance with law. That apart, we would also have the advantage of the High Court’s view point in the event an aggrieved party comes before this Court. 6. Consequently, we decline to entertain this writ petition and dispose of the same with a direction to the Registrar General and Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Patna...." 

Notably, Sita Sahu et al had filed the case regarding quashing in the High Court on July 15, 2025 against Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Director General of Police, Bihar, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, Minicipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Prakash Sharma, D.S.P. (Town), Bihar, Rajesh Kumar, P.S In-Charge Gandhi Maidan Police Station, Bihar and Rahul Thakur, P.S. In-Charge, Alamganj Police Station. The case was registered in the High Court on July 29, 2025. But no judge has been assigned the case so far. 

Supreme Court stays bail rejection order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh

In Basar Ahmad @ Basar Ahmad Farooqui @ Basar Ahamad vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadeva passed an order dated July 31, 2025, wherein it stayed the order dated March 25, 2025 by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court. Justice Singh's order reads: "Considering the specific and direct nature of accusation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected." 

The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 318(4), 61(2), 123 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The prosecution had alleged that the petitioner had sexually abused the informant on the false promise of marriage and later on refused to solemnize marriage. 

Supreme Court's order reads:"In the meantime, there shall not be any arrest of the petitioner."

Supreme Court reverses bail rejection order by Justice Sourendra Pandey

In Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a 4-page order dated July 30, 2025. The petitioner had challenged the 2-page long order dated July 4, 2025 in Rakesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025) passed by Justice Sourendra Pandey of the Patna High Court. Supreme Court's order reads:"In the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.166 of 2024 of Baligaon Police Station, Vaishali District, Bihar, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the appropriate terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer." The Court issued  notice, returnable on September 12, 2025.

Justice Pandey's order reads: "This is the second anticipatory bail application preferred by the petitioner as stated in the bail petition and from perusal of Annexure-1, it transpires that the petitioner had earlier moved for anticipatory bail along with three other co-accused persons, however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought permission to withdraw the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, namely, Rakesh Kumar @ Lalu. 3. In view of the same, since this is the second anticipatory bail application and the earlier application had already been dismissed as withdrawn, I am not inclined to entertain this application. 4. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected." The case had arisen out of a P.S. case of 2024. The case was filed in the High Court on June 11, 2025 and registered on June 26, 2025. 

Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi bench grants liberty to dismissed Mukhiya to file fresh petition

In Ravi Kumar Mahto vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 4-page long judgement dated July 24, 2025. In his 5th judgement as Chief Justice, Justice Pancholi observed:"We permit the appellant herein to withdraw the aforesaid petition. We also at the same time permit the appellant to withdraw the present appeal by granting liberty to the appellant/petitioner to challenge the aforesaid two orders passed by the concerned respondent authorities. It is further observed that as and when the fresh petition/proceeding is filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the aforesaid orders, the same shall be examined on its own merits without being influenced by the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 1 of 2024, 2 of 2025 and 3 of 2025 in the main writ petition. 8. It is always open for the appellant/petitioner to challenge the by-election held for the post of Mukhiya, which the appellant/petitioner was holding before his removal. As and when any proceeding is taken by the appellant/petitioner, the same shall be examined on its own merits. We have not gone into the merits of the matter." Notably, on July 28, 2025, Justice Pancholi passed a 2-apge long order wherein liberty was granted "to file a fresh petition."

The Letters Patent Appeal was filed under provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules challenging the 5-page long order dated July 7, 2025 passed by Single Judge in I.A. No. 03 of 2025, filed in CWJC No. 1789 of 2024, whereby Justice Alok Kumar Sinha, the Single Judge had rejected I.A. No. 03 of 2025. The appellant had filed CWJC No. 1789 of 2024 in which the appellant/petitioner had prayed for setting aside the letter dated December 11, 2023, issued under the signature of Sub Divisional Officer, Mahua, Vaishali at Hajipur, whereby and whereunder the said authority had recommended the District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur to take action against the petitioner under Section 18 (5) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. Petitioner has also challenged letter dated December 19, 2023, issued under the signature of District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur whereby he had recommended the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur for taking action against the petitioner under the provision. The petitioner had also prayed for stay of notification dated June 9, 2025 issued by the State Election Commission for holding by-election to the post of Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat,, stay of order dated August August 7,  2024 passed by Additional Chief Secretary by which the petitioner had been removed from the post of Mukhiya, for impleading the State Election Commission, which was rejected on June 30, 2025.

The High Court did not grant any interim relief in favour of the petitioner in the main writ petition, the concerned respondent authority proceeded with the matter and ultimately Lok Prahari recommended for removal of the petitioner from the post of Mukhiya on April 13, 2024 and on the basis of the recommendation made by Lok Prahari now order dated August 7, 2024 was passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, the Respondent No. 2 whereby the appellant/original petitioner was removed from his post.

The appellant/petitioner had filed I.A.s. in the main writ petition and had tried to bring on record the subsequent development which had taken place during the pendency of the writ petition. The Single Judge had passed orders in the said Interlocutory Applications filed by the appellant/petitioner. 

Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi bench grants relief without examining the merits of case

In Dhananjay Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 3-page long judgement dated July 24, 2025 granting relief to the appellants without examining the merits of case.

The appellants were the owners of the land in which, now, the respondent authorities had decided to construct Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan. The appellants had made representation before the respondent authorities.  Justice Rajesh Kumar Verm, the Single Judge had dismissed their petition mainly on the ground citing an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court, wherein it was held that "it is for the authorities to decide where the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is to be constructed." 

The counsel for the appellants submitted before Justice Pancholi led bench that if the respondent authorities are directed to decide the representation filed by the appellants, then the appellants would be satisfied with the same. In his 4th judgement as Chief Justice, Justice Pancholi concluded: "If the appellants file the representation within a period of four weeks from today, respondent No. 6 shall decide the same in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 5. It is clarified that we have not examined the merits of the case of the appellants."

The appeal was filed under Clause-X of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court Rules against the 4-page long order dated February 17, 2025, passed by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, the Single Judge in Dhananjay Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025) CWJC No. 2840 of 2025, whereby the Single Judge had dismissed the petition filed by the present appellants/petitioners. 

Justice Verma had relied on  order dated April 7, 2023 passed by High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Madhuresh Prasad in Naveen Kumar Ram & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2023), because not a single cheat of paper annexed by the petitioners suggested that construction was going on the land of the petitioners. The order was authored by Justice Prasad. He concluded: "8. No case is made out for interference by this Court."

Patna High Court upholds judgment by Justice Madhuresh Prasad

In Mukesh Kumar S/o Late Guneshwar Prasad Singh & Anr. vs. The Union of India, through the Secretary, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 11-page long judgment dated July 24, 2025, wherein, Justice Pancholi concluded:"We are of the view that the Single Judge while passing the impugned order. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the petition filed by the present appellants / petitioners. Hence, no interference is required in the present appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed." This is the 3rd judgement authored by Justice Pancholi as Chief Justice. 

The Court was referring to the 13-page long judgment dated November 28, 2022 by Justice Madhuresh Prasad.  Justice Prasad had observed:"The petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time." 

He also observed: "The petitioner clearly does not fulfill thev“prescribed qualification” as per Clause R-3 (b). Therefore, also he is not in a position to claim appointment under the SABF. SABF stands for Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme. 

The Court recorded that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner was pursuing his ITI course. The Authorities, therefore, should have provided the petitioner an opportunity of completing the ITI course and thereby acquiring the requisite qualification, by extending the normal waiting period of three years, up to seven years, under Clause R-3 (d) of he SABF Scheme for becoming eligible under option R-3 of the SABF.

Chief Justice led bench approves order by Justice A. Abhishek Reddy

In Baba Debraha Enterprises a proprietorship firm through its proprietor namely Rakesh Ranjan...vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2024), in his 7-page long order dated November 18, 2024, Justice A. Abhishek Reddy of Patna High Court concluded:"The petitioner cannot be faulted for the lapses which has been committed by the respondent-authorities....The Respondents are directed to pay the amount of Rs. Rs.28,45,790/- incurred by the petitioner for purchase of the vehicles as per the terms and conditions of the bid document. That in so far as the other prayer of the petitioner seeking interest, security charges etc. are concerned this Court is not inclined to grant the same and the same is rejected. The authorities shall pay the amount due to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the amounts are not paid by the authorities within the stipulated time, the petitioner would be entitled for payment of simple interest at the rate of 7% from the date of raising the invoice till the date of actual payment." Justice Reddy allowed  the writ petition. 

In The Nagar Panchayat Nirmali through its Executive Officer, District -Supaul & Anr. vs. Baba Debraha Enterprises a proprietorship Firm through its proprietor namely Rakesh Ranjan..& Ors. (2025), High Court's Division Bench led by Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered a 11-page long judgment dated July 22, 2025 disposed the case by partly allowing  the appeal. In his 2nd judgment as Chief Justice, Justice Pancholi concluded:". We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while issuing direction to the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 28,45,790/- incurred by the petitioner for the purchase of the vehicles in question. However, at the same time, at this stage, we record that the learned counsel appearing for the present opponent/original petitioner has, under the instruction, submitted that the delivery of the remaining 2 vehicles in question would be given to respondent nos. 4 and 5 as per the bid document/work order within a period of one week. It is needless to observe that the original petitioner shall maintain the vehicles in question for a period of one year from the date of supply as per the original terms and conditions of the bid document."

Referring to Justice Reddy's order, Justice Pancholi observed:"....we would like to observe that the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the petition and the other reliefs prayed by the petitioner have not been granted in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the dispute is with regard to the payment of Rs. 28,45,790/- incurred by the petitioner for purchase of the 2 Hooper Tippers from the concerned manufacturer. We are of the view that once the petitioner has purchased the vehicles pursuant to the bid issued by the respondent and as per the work order, the respondent was required to take the delivery of the said vehicles as per the terms and conditions of the bid document. There was no fault on the part of the petitioner and because of the fact that the respondent did not take the delivery of remaining 2 vehicles from the petitioner, the petitioner has suffered a loss."

In his first verdict, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi upholds judgment by Justice Amanullah

In Shila Singh @ Shilanath Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Partha Sarthy delivered a 8-page long judgment dated July 22, 2025, wherein, the bench upheld the 4-page long judgment dated February 9, 2017 delivered by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah by Ravindra Nath Singh vs. The Union of India & Ors (2017) Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16760 of 2016. This is first judgment authored by Justice Pancholi as the Chief Justice of the High Court. 

The bench observed that "in the order dated 09.02.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the concerned petitioner, this Court did not examine the merits of the case of the said petitioner and the liberty was reserved to him to file representation before the concerned authority with further direction to the authority that as and when such representation is filed by the concerned petitioner, the same shall be examined on its own merits. We are, therefore, of the view that in the said petition the concerned learned Single Judge did not decide the case on merits. 

Justice Pancholi observed: "....We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the petition. Accordingly, this appeal is required to be dismissed."

As Single Judge bench of the High Court, Justice Amanullah had passed the judgment upon hearing the petitioner who had moved the Court seeking a direction to the respondents to implement their policy of providing a job to the persons whose lands has been acquired for the purposes of constructing railway bridge over the river Ganga at Rupaspur in the District of Patna.

The Letters Patent Appeal was filed under provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules, wherein the appellant/original petitioner had challenged the judgment dated December 12, 2022 passed by  Single Judge in CWJC No. 9163 of 2015, where by the  Single Judge had dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. The counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was the owner of the land which was acquired by the respondent-Railways. The appellant claimed that award in respect of 19 dhurs out of 2 kathas of land was made in favour of his mother. He also alleged that for remaining 1 katha and 1 dhur, award was prepared in the name of one Zubaida Bibi wife of Habib Mian, though she has no right, title, interest or possession over the said land. It was further submitted that L.A.R. Case No. 2/2013 was pending in the court of Sub-Judge-II, Saran at Chapra with regard to the dispute. 

The appellant claimed to be the son of Ram Jyoti Devi who died in the year 2005. He prayed that as per the policy of the Railways, which was framed in the year 2007, the son of the appellant was entitled to get employment in the Railways. 

But the Single Judge had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner mainly on two grounds; firstly that the Single Judge considered that the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 2002 whereas the petitioner filed the petition in the year 2015. Therefore, there was a delay of 13 years in filing the petition and, therefore, Single Judge did not consider the case of the petitioner on merits, so far as parcel of the land was concerned. Secondly, so far as remaining parcel of land was concerned, i.e., 1 katha 1 dhur land, which was acquired by the respondent-Railways, The Single Judge had observed that the dispute with regard to the grant of compensation for the said land is pending before court of Sub-Judge-II, Saran at Chapra in L.A.R. Case No. 2/2013. He also observed that the said land is less than 0.2 acres and as the dispute is pending before the concerned court, petitioner would not be entitled to any compensation. The Single Judge did not entertain the petition on that count also.

The appellant's counsel, had urged that the Single Judge committed an error while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. He also submitted that this Court may grant liberty to the appellant to file appropriate proceeding after the dispute is resolved by Sub-Judge-II, Saran at Chapra in L.A.R. Case No. 2/2013. He further prayed that the appellant be permitted to file representation before the respondent authority with regard to the prayers made in the present petition. 

Supreme Court records "no one has put in appearance for State of Bihar" in Priyanka Kumari & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025)

In Priyanka Kumari & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court's Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan passed a 2-page long order dated July 22, 2025, wherein it recorded:"The matter was taken up twice but no one has put in appearance for State of Bihar....Let the date of hearing of the present petitions be notified to the Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar." Now the matter is listed for hearing on August  12, 2025. The case arose out of 9-page long judgment dated April 11, 2019 passed by the Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Anjana Mishra. The judgement was authored by Justice Sahi which affirmed 20 page long judgement dated February 22, 2018 by Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay who had relied on Supreme Court's "principle of useless formality theory in the matter of compliance of natural justice". 

Justice Upadhyay drew on para 17 of the judgment of the Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. V.K.Awasthy: (2005) 6 SCC 321 which reads: “17. What is known as `useless formality theory' has received consideration of this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, [1999] 6 SCC 237. It was observed as under: 22. "Before we go into the final aspect of this contention, we would like to state that case relating to breach of natural justice do also occur where all facts are not admitted or are not all beyond dispute. In the context of those cases there is a considerable case-law and literature as to whether relief can be refused  even if the court thinks that the case of the applicant is not one of `real substance' or that there is no substantial possibility of his success or that the result will not be different, even if natural justice is followed (See Malloch v. Aberdeen Corpn., [1971] 2 All ER 1278, HL (per Lord Reid and Lord Wilberforce), Glynn v. Keele University, [1971] 2 All ER 89; Cinnamond v. British Airports Authority, [1980] 2 All ER 368, CA and other cases where such a view has been held. The latest addition to this view is R. v. Ealing Magistrates. Court, ex p. Fannaran, (1996) 8 Admn. LR 351, 358) See de Smith, Suppl. P.89 (1998) where Straughton, L.J. held that there must be `demonstrable beyond doubt. that the result would have been different. Lord Woolf in Lloyd v. McMohan, [1987] 1 All ER 1118, CA has also not disfavoured refusal of discretion in certain cases of breach of natural justice. The New Zealand Court in McCarthy v. Grant, (1959) NZLR 1014 however goes halfway when it says that (as in the case of bias), it is sufficient for the applicant to show that there is `real likelihood-not certainty- of prejudice.' On the other hand, Garner Administrative Law (8th Edn. 1996. pp.271-72) says that slight proof that the result would have been different is sufficient. On the other side of the argument, we have apart from Ridge v. Baldwin, (1964) AC 40: [1963] 2 All ER 66, HL), Megarry, J. in John v. Rees, [1969] 2 All ER 274 stating that there are always `open and shut cases. and no absolute rule of proof of prejudice can be laid down. Merits are not for the court but for the authority to consider. Ackner, J has said that the `useless formality theory' is a dangerous one and, however inconvenient, natural justice must be followed. His Lordship observed that `convenience and justice are often not on speaking terms' More recently, Lord Bingham has deprecated the `useless formality theory' in R. v. Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police Forces, ex p. Cotton (1990 IRLR 344) by giving six reasons (see also his article `Should Public Law Remedies be Discretionary?" 1991 PL. p.64). A detailed and emphatic criticism of the `useless formality theory. has been made much earlier in `Natural Justice, Substance or Shadow' by Prof. D.H. Clark of Canada (see 1975 PL.pp.27-63) contending that Malloch (supra) and Glynn (supra) were wrongly decided. Foulkes (Administrative Law, 8th Edn. 1996, p.323), Craig (Administrative Law, 3rd Edn. P.596) and others say that the court cannot prejudge what is to be decided by the decision-making authority. De Smith (5th Edn. 1994, paras 10.031 to 10.036) says courts have not yet committed themselves to any one view though discretion is always with the court. Wade (Administrative Law, 5th Edn. 1994, pp.526-530) says that while futile writs may not be issued, a distinction has to be made according to the nature of the decision. Thus, in relation to cases other than those relating to admitted or indisputable facts, there is a considerable divergence of opinion whether the applicant can be compelled to prove that the outcome will be in his favour or he has to prove a case of substance or if he can prove a `real likelihood' of success or if he is entitled to relief even if there is some remote chance of success. We may, however, point out that even in cases where the facts are not all admitted or beyond dispute, there is a considerable unanimity that the courts can, in exercise of their `discretion', refuse certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or injunction even though natural justice is not followed. We may also state that there is yet another line of cases as in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, [1996] 3 SCC 364 and Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P., [1996] 5 SCC 460 that even in relation to statutory provisions requiring notice, a distinction is to be made between cases where the provision is intended for individual benefit and where a provision is intended to protect public interest. In the former case, it can be waived while in the case of the latter, it cannot be waived. 23.We do not propose to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the `useless formality theory' and leave the matter for decision in an appropriate case, inasmuch as the case before us,`admitted and indisputable' facts show that grant of a writ will be in vain as pointed by Chinnappa Reddy, J."

The appellants had questioned the correctness of the dismissal judgment of the Single Judge dated 22nd February, 2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6827 of 2016 before the High Court's Division Bench in their appeal. The Single Judge had declined the claim of the appellants and their effort to save their employment on the strength of a degree awarded by the University of Technology and Science, Chhattisgarh.

The Single Judge relied on Supreme Court's decision in the case of Prof. Yashpal and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420 which had arrived at the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled to the academic benefits of the said University which has been declared to be non-existent under the judgment of the Court and therefore their employment on the basis of any degree by the University was rightly terminated.

The counsel for the appellants had urged that the very same judgment in para 64 and 65 indicated that the students’ career instead of being jeopardized should be revisited by the State Government in order to extend any benefit of affiliation or otherwise in order to sustain the career of such students who had been admitted in such Institutions. He submitted that this was a University created under an Act of the State Legislature, namely, Section 5 of the Chhatisgarh Viniyaman) Adhiniyam 2002 and therefore its existence cannot be doubted. The contention was that so far as the appellants were concerned, the legality of the establishment of the University or otherwise cannot be attributed to them for the purpose of virtually recalling the degrees already conferred on them by such University, inasmuch as, they had bona fidely pursued their studies and were awarded degrees which in the present case are degrees relating to Library Science on the basis whereof they were granted employment. It was their employment which was terminated on the ground of their degrees being invalid. It  was submitted that the declaration of law by the Supreme Court itself extended protection and issued directions to the State of Chhattisgarh for protecting the interest of students and their career. The contention, was that the appellants stand on a better footing, inasmuch as, they are students who had already been awarded degrees by the time the University was declared to be non-existent under the judgment of the Apex Court. Consequently, any form of default on the part of the appellants who have pursued their academic career in this University cannot be a cause for recall of the employment which the appellants had been offered on the basis of a degree which otherwise was valid when it was granted. 

The Single Judge had recorded the findings and concluded that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the termination orders emanated without following any procedure of law and were in violation of principles of natural justice, relegating the matter back to the authorities for a decision afresh would be a useless formality, inasmuch as, on the admitted facts the degree on the basis of which the appellants had obtained employment was invalid and consequently all the appellants holding a degree, which was a nullity, cannot claim continuance in employment on the strength thereof. 

The counsel for the appellants had urged that the aspect with regard to any protection being given to such students who had already obtained degrees does not appear to have been negated by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Prof. Yashpal (supra) nor has the State Government of Chhatisgarh denied any such benefit. It is also submitted that even the learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect and, therefore, in the above background the termination of the employment of the appellants without following the due procedure of law cannot be justified. 

The counsel for the State of Bihar, had contended that an employment extended to the appellants on the basis of an academic degree which is a nullity cannot be sustained and any continuance thereof would be contrary to law. He submitted that it is in this background that the action was taken by the authorities and after having verified the status of the Institution the letter of the Deputy Director (Education) dated 19th May, 2009 was issued informing the authorities to take appropriate action in relation to the engagement of the appellants as well as such other similarly situate employees who had obtained degrees from such Institutions. 

The counsel for the appellants had urged that the said document indicated the name of the University which was not a correct name, and even otherwise there is an indication that the University is closed from 2005. It was submitted that the closure of the University was on account of the judgment of the Supreme Court and such a closure, therefore, does not eclipse or abrogate the degree obtained by the appellants from the University when it was in existence prior to that. Consequently, the said directions issued by the Deputy Director (Education) would not be applicable in a retrospective manner so as to take away any impact of a valid degree which otherwise was capable of being acknowledged as it had been conferred by the University that was created under a Statute. The University, therefore, was empowered to confer such a degree and consequently, the letter of the Deputy Director (Education) dated 19th May, 2009 does not take away the effect or nullify the effect of a degree already awarded by the University.

The High Court's Division Bench observed: "9. We have considered the entire arguments before us and we find that the Apex Court judgment in the case of Prof. Yashpal (supra) derecognises such Universities by declaring the provisions of the Act under which the University was established to be ultra vires. The birth of the University, therefore, having taken under Statute which was declared to be ultra vires, therefore, cannot allow the acknowledgment of a degree granted by such a University to be valid which has been declared to be non-existent. In our opinion, it would be paradoxical to recognize a degree of a University that has been declared to be non-existent on account of an invalid law under which the University itself was created. If the creation of the University itself was unlawful, then any degree conferred by such a University cannot be pressed into service for the purpose of a lawful employment. 10. We, therefore, do not find any error in the conclusion ultimately drawn by the learned Single Judge in declining to entertain the writ petition for grant of any such benefit. 11. There is, however, one argument which deserves mention, namely, the Apex Court in the judgment of Prof. Yashpal (supra) did not specifically declare any such degrees already conferred to be a nullity. To that extent, the appellants could have raised their grievances before the State of Chhattisgarh for extending such benefits, but in the present case what we find that neither the University Grants Commission nor the State of Chhattisgarh have been made party respondents on the basis whereof any such determination can be attempted by this Court in order to gather as to whether the appellants would be entitled to any such benefit or not. There is no indication in any of the documents filed that the State of Chhattisgarh had taken any steps for recognition of such degrees which virtually by operation of law and the declaration of law by the Supreme Court stood lapsed without there being any further action for reviving or acknowledging them as to be surviving for the purpose of any employment under the State."

The Division Bench of the High Court had concluded: "....we are unable to further probe on the issue so raised by the appellants with regard to the validity or otherwise of their degree and we leave it open to the appellants to claim any such benefit, if permissible in law, inasmuch as, the question of recognition of such a degree would not be open to be examined by us in view of what has been stated hereinabove. 13. The appeal, therefore, is accordingly consigned to records with the said observations."