Chief Justice Vipul Pancholi led bench dismisses PIL demanding construction of new Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan on the land of old Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan

In Sabiya Devi & Ors. 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 a 7-page long judgment dated August 1, 2025 dismissed the petition. This is the 11th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice.  

The Public Interest Litigation was filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the report dated February  1, 2025 submitted by the Block Development Officer, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai and the Circle Officer, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai, the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to District Panchayat Raj Officer, Lakhisarai, the respondent No. 4 vide Memo No. 119 dated February 1, 2025 recommending the construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in Plot No. 404 of Khata No. 407 situated in Village- Tumni which is 10 Kilometres away from the headquarter village of Gram Panchayat. The petitioners also prayed that the respondents be directed to produce on record the order passed by District Magistrate, Lakhisarai, the respondent No. 3 after January 10, 2025 in respect of construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan of Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajpur Chaura in Plot No. 604, Khata No. 460, admeasuring an area of 50 decimals. The petitioners referred to the averments made in the memo of the petition and thereafter submitted that for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in Gram Panchayat of the State, different guidelines was issued by the State Government from time to time. The counsel referred to the guidelines were issued and the letter dated August 30, 2022, copy of which is placed on record of the compilation. It was the grievance of the petitioners that though there was sufficient land in the plot in which the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was constructed in the year 1983, the respondent authorities had selected different land of Khata No. 460 bearing Plot No. 604 situated in Village- Tumni under Rajpur Mauza for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajpur Chaura, pursuant thereto Respondent No. 3 directed the Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Lakhisarai for preparation of estimate vide communication dated October 6, 2022.

It was the case of the petitioners that when the petitioners came to know about the same, representation given to the concerned respondent authority, which led to the formation of a "Three Men Committee" which submitted its report. It was pointed out from the said document that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were directed to submit their report. It was also contended by counsel that pursuant to the direction given by Respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Lakhisarai, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submitted the report dated February 1, 2025 in which it was stated that the land in question is a proper place where Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan can be constructed. 

The petitioners preferred the present petition for quashing of the said report submitted by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It was also contended that after receipt of the report from Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, Respondent Nos. 3, District Magistrate, Lakhisarai had till date not taken any decision whether to construct the said Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at the said place or not. But in the meantime, as per the information received by the petitioners, the concerned contractor had already started construction at the place in question. 

The counsel of the petitioners urged that the aforesaid construction be stopped till the decision was taken by the District Magistrate. The Advocate General referred to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. It was pointed out from the said counter affidavit that in fact the decision was taken in the year 2022 to construct the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at the place in question. However, thereafter, considering the objections raised by the petitioners, matter was once again examined by the concerned respondent authority. In fact, jointly spot was examined by the Circle Officer as well as Block Development Officer i.e. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and thereafter they submitted their report on February 1, 2025. It was further submitted that as per the said report, the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan can be  constructed at the place in question. He contended that it was for the concerned authority to decide where the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was to be constructed and it was not for any individual or village people to decide the same. In the present case, when there was a report submitted by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 with regard to the land in question, this Court may not entertain the present petition. 

Justice Pancholi observed: "Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials placed on record, it transpires that Respondent No. 3 has considered Three Men Committee’s report. The report has been placed on record at Page-34 of the compilation. Now, pursuant to the decision taken in the said meeting, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have visited the place in question and thereafter now submitted the report on 01.02.2025. Once the concerned respondent authorities have visited the place in question and thereafter submitted the report, we are of the view that the present petition filed by the petitioners is misconceived. We are of the view that the petitioners have made very vague averments in the memo of the petition in Paragraph 17 that construction work has already been initiated by the concerned contractor. In fact, the concerned contractor was not impleaded as party respondent in the present petition. We are, therefore, of the view that if the decision is not taken by Respondent No. 3 pursuant to the report dated 01.02.2025, it is open for Respondent No. 3 to take appropriate decision in accordance with law pursuant to the communication/report dated 01.02.2025 submitted by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to quash the report dated 01.02.2025 submitted by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, as prayed for in the present petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed." 

Justice Pancholi led bench dismisses petition seeking allotment of alternative land for construction of Trauma Centre in Ora, Aurangabad

In Sanjit Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's  Division Bench of Justice Vipul M. Pancholi led bench passed a 6-page long judgement date August 1, 2025. Justice Pancholi's 10th judgement as chief justice dismissed the petition. 

Justice Pancholi concluded: 'Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials placed on record, it transpires that the District Magistrate, Aurangabad has written a letter to respondent no. 3 on 27.10.2024, wherein, it has been pointed out in detail about the Primary Health Centre as well as Health Centres situated in the nearby area and the distance between the Sadar Hospital and such Health Centres. However, in the said letter itself, it has been pointed out that on NH-19 between Gaya to Kaimur, there is no Trauma Centre. Number of accidents are taking place on the said Highway and, therefore, it is necessary to construct a Trauma Centre on NH-19. Pursuant to the said communication, decision has been taken to construct Trauma Centre at the land in question. We are of the view that when the authorities have taken the decision keeping in view the relevant aspects in public interest, it is not open for this Court to interfere with such decision. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. The petition stands dismissed.'

The petitioner who is the resident of village Karhara, Post-Kanbehari, under Gram Panchayat Ora, Aurangabad had filed the Public Interest Litigation. The main contention of the petitioner in the petition was that the matter relates to land pertaining to Khata No. 59, Plot No. 597 ad-measuring 4.08 acre under Mauza – Karhara, Thana No. 866, Gram Panchayat Ora, Aurangabad. It was the case of the petitioner that the said land was used by villagers of the Panchayat. The Circle Officer, Aurangabad, issued a general notice intimating to the public at large about the decision of the administration to transfer 30 decimal of land under Khata No. 59, Plot No. 597, i.e. the land in question for construction of Trauma Centre. The concerned authority invited objection from the general public till October, 2024. In response to this notice issued by the authority, the meeting of general body was convened on September 12, 2024. 

The Gram Panchayat Ora convened the said meeting in which the agenda was to consider the recommendation of the land in question by the Circle Officer for the purpose of construction of Trauma Centre. In the said meeting, it was unanimously decided that Vivah Mandap would be constructed over the land in question and NOC would not be given to the Health Department for construction of Trauma Centre over the land in question. It was further case of petitioner that in the light of the objection of the village people, the District Magistrate, Aurangabad in its letter dated October 27, 2024 wrote to the Managing Director, Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., the respondent no. 3, wherein, it was mentioned that number of accidents were taking place in the district Aurangabad and, therefore, Trauma Centre was required to be constructed on NH-19. Similar type of letter was written by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad on November 12, 2024 communicating the aforesaid aspect to the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department. It was  conveyed by the said communication that the land in question was earmarked for the purpose of construction of Trauma Centre. The grievance of the petitioner was that the representation was made by the villagers of Gram Panchayat on January 7, 2025, wherein, they pointed out about the aspect of construction of Trauma Centre in the area of the concerned village Panchayat for the reasons stated in the said communication/representation. However, the respondent authority did not take any decision on the said representation made by the village people.

The petitioner had filed the present writ petition, wherein, he prayed that appropriate direction be issued to the respondents whereby the respondents be restrained from constructing Trauma Centre over the land in question. It was further prayed that the suitable alternative land be allotted for construction of Trauma Centre. It was also prayed that the respondents be directed to stop the construction of Trauma Centre during the pendency of the present writ petition. 

Chief Justice Pancholi led bench sets aside order by Justice A. Abhishek Reddy

In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Kumari Nikita Singh (2025), Patna High Court's  Division Bench Justice Vipul M. Pancholi led bench passed a 24-page long judgement date July 29, 2025. It reads: "we are of the view that, in view of Clause 15(m) as well as declaration, the BPCL was justified in passing the impugned order dated December 3. 2019 cancelling the candidature of the petitioner. Hence, the learned Single Judge has committed an error by allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated July 29., 2024, passed in CWJC No.1241 of 2021 is set aside." Justice Pancholi's 9th judgement reads:"For the reasons and grounds mentioned above and the impugned order is set aside, the authorities are directed to process the application of the petitioner and grant him the letter of intent, if he is otherwise eligible. The present writ petition is allowed accordingly. It is also made clear that in case the Respondent No. 6, if so advised, can file a civil suit for compensation or for recovery of the amounts spent by him." The case was heard along with Deepak Kumar Singh vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai & Ors. (2025). 

Justice Pancholi recollected the decision in wherein, the Court observed:"17. In matters of contract, the Writ Court may leave it open to the contracting parties to act in the manner they may deem fit. Insofar as
the action of the IOCL is not seen to be plainly arbitrary and/or unreasoned, we are not inclined to offer any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to reverse the commercial decision of the IOCL – to not enter into the contract with the petitioner." 

Justice Pancholi observed:"We are of the view that when the petitioner as well as another candidate, namely, Manisha Kumari, sister-in-law of the petitioner, both have offered same plots of land bearing Khesra No.1982 and 1984, BPCL was justified in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner." The Court inferred that the petitioner as well as Manisha Kumari were aware about the aspect of offering same plots of land for RO dealership, otherwise, there was no reason for Manisha Kumari to withdraw her candidature. 

In his judgement, Justice Pancholi recorded that Manisha Kumari had withdrawn her candidature on September 26, 2019 itself, due to the reason that her sister-in-law has been selected in draw of lots. 

Justice Abhishek Reddy's 11-page long judgement dated July 29, 2024 had set aside the impugned order and directed "the authorities to process the application of the petitioner and grant him the letter of intent, if he is otherwise eligible. The present writ petition is allowed accordingly. It is also made clear that in case the Respondent No. 6, if so advised, can file a civil suit for compensation or for recovery of the amounts spent by him." The petitioner had filed for the following reliefs:-
(i) To issue an appropriate writ order direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter bearing reference no. 15455627859308 dated 03.12.2019 whereby the territorial manager retail, Muzaffarpur has cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of the information furnished during field verification of credentials without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
(ii) To declare and hold that the land/plot offered by the petitioner for award of RO dealership within 2 km. from Barail chowk towards Donwari Hatt on Madhubani Babubarhi Khutona Path, District Madhubani under open category through application form no. 15455627859308 is not offered by another applicant for the same location and the said land exclusively has been offered by the petitioner for the location.

Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Respondent-Corporation seeking applications for award of the
Retail Outlet Dealership at within 2 Km. from Barai Chok towards Donwari Haat on Madhubani-Babubarhi-Khutona Path District- Madhubani, the petitioner had applied for allotment of the Retail Outlet Dealership of petrol pump on December 23, 2018. Thereafter, in the draw of lots/bidding process for the above location under open category was conducted on July 26, 2019. The petitioner was declared as a selected candidate and the same was communicated to the petitioner on July 29, 2019. The petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards initial official security deposit along with requisite documents for processing his application further. Though the field verification of the site was fixed on September 26, 2019, the same was not conducted and thereafter vide letter dated December 3, 2019 the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled. The cancellation was on the ground that the plot offered by the petitioner was also offered by another applicant, namely Manisha Kumari for the very same location. The petitioner's counsel had stated that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the land offered by the petitioner and one Manisha Kumari who had admittedly withdrawn her application was one and the same, was totally erroneous, contrary to the facts of the case, done without verification of the record, illegal, arbitrary and the same was liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind. 

The petitioners counsel stated that the requirement for the award of dealership is 35 mt. (frontage) x 35 mt. (Depth) i.e. total 1225 sq. mts. and the petitioner had offered the land in Plot No. 1982,1982 bearing Khata No. 201, 158, 221 and 159 at village Teghara Taluka/Tahsil Babubarhi, District-Madhubani. The counsel also submitted that the total area of the land in the above khata numbers is more than 2500 sq. mtr. and the petitioner had offered only 1225 sq mtr. out of the total area of more than 2500 sq. mtr. as per the advertised area. That the other area of 1225 sq. meter. was offered by the said Manisha Kumari who had admittedly withdrawn her application after the draw of lots. Therefore, as on the date of rejecting the application of the petitioner, the total land of 2,500 sq. mtr. was available and there was no other application pending before the authority. Even for the sake of argument if any application was pending, the same pertains to another area, not the area offered by the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the impugned order passed by the authorities rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is liable to be set aside on the ground that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the cancellation nor the petitioner was given an opportunity of filing his explanation. In case the same was done, the petitioner could had proved that the land offered by the petitioner is distinct and different from the one offered by the Manisha Kumari. Even otherwise, the petitioner could had the opportunity of offering some other alternate land if the land offered was not found suitable. That the authority concerned without physically inspecting the subject land as fixed on 26.09.2019 has simply rejected the candidature of the petitioner in a mechanical manner. The counsel had prayed the High Court to set aside the impugned order and pass necessary orders directing the Respondent-Corporation to process the application of the petitioner further and grant him the Retail Outlet Dealership.
 

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 

As part of Division Bench Justice Partha Sarthy refuses to modify Court's 2014 order, declines relief to Neha Agrawal in a family dispute

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 July, 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 disposed it directing the 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.” 

Notably, 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 cross examination. Subsequent to the directions of this Court, the petitioner appeared in the learned Family Court and cross examined PW-1 partly on 10.1.2025, however the cross examination 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 cross examination 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, in spite of 15 months having passed wherein the case was listed on 17 dates, he was discharged on March 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.

The Court's order reads: '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 the plaintiff. 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, 2024 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."

In the 11-page long judgement dated November 29, 2024, Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy in Letters Patent Appeal No.490 of 2024 filed in Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1804 of 2023, noted that it was concerned with an appeal from an order in a MJC filed in C.Misc. No. 269 of 2021. The appellant and the respondent were married on November 7, 2014 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. When differences arose between the couple, the husband, who was the respondent, filed Matrimonial Divorce Suit No. 1044 of 2016. A written statement was also filed by the appellant, the wife, in October, 2017. In the C. Misc Case, the petitioner-husband was concerned with the delay in disposal of the divorce case. The wife, who appeared as the respondent, was concerned more with the pending petitions before the Principal Judge, Family Court, which had to be considered, before disposal of the main case. It was also brought to the notice of the Court considering the C. Misc Case that a Miscellaneous Case was already initiated in respect of the husband, under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), on an application filed by the wife.

The Court recalled that the Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated December 3, 2021, in CWJC No.269 of 2021, had found that both the parties desired speedy disposal of the case, but at the same time,
the disposal of the interlocutory applications filed by the respondent, was also necessary to meet the ends of justice. It was directed that, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, would take every endeavor to dispose of the divorce case, as expeditiously as possible, subject to any legal or procedural impediment. So far as the interlocutory applications filed by the respondent, it was found that they have not been affidavited on oath and hence, no further observation was made. The husband, later, filed an MJC in the C.Misc Case on the ground that the wife did not produce her witnesses for examination for the last five years. The Single Judge noticed, by an order dated March 1, 2024, that the earlier order dated December 3, 2021 had directed disposal of the divorce case expeditiously. It was further directed that the defendant wife would be given an opportunity, by way of three dates, to conclude her evidence; since the plaintiff’s evidence was already concluded. There was also a direction to comply, within a period of three months. A report of the Court below about payment of maintenance amount was also called for, to be placed within a period of three weeks. The matter was again taken up on May 1, 2024. The wife, who appeared through video conferencing, submitted that ad interim maintenance was not being paid and the Counsel for the husband undertook that whatever dues are to be paid, will be paid within a period of 15 days. Again, the submission of the wife, regarding the application filed under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., was noticed. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, was directed to ensure that the remaining dues of ad interim maintenance be paid to the opposite party and it was also directed that the application under Section 340
of the Cr.P.C. would be taken up expeditiously and the earlier order dated March 1, 2024, would also be complied with. 

 

Neha Agrawal was before the Justice Chandran led bench which appointed an Amicus Curiae, namely, Satyabir Bharti, for the appellant-wife, who was appearing in-person.Justice Chandran observed: "Despite
the objection raised regarding the sustainability of an appeal, we were of the opinion that there should be a quietus insofar as the matrimonial dispute between the parties." It was pointed out to us that a C. Misc Case No. 451 of 2019 also was pending before the Single Judge having roster, against the award of maintenance; at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The wife had filed this C. Misc Case challenging the order and seeking an enhancement to Rs. 3,50,000/-, on the ground that the petitioner’s income is much
more than that asserted by him. It was also pointed out that three witnesses were examined before the Family Court, in the divorce case, who were discharged and the petitioner did not have an any opportunity to cross-examine them. An application was filed for recall of the witnesses, which was also pending before the Additional Family Court. 

 

The counsel for the respondent-husband on pointed out that P.Ws. No.-1, 2 and 3, on behalf of the petitioner, were examined before the Family Court, respectively on May 4, 2019, May 28, 2019 and December 15, 2021. It was only because of the lethargy displayed by the respondent that they were not cross-examined, in which circumstance, the witnesses were discharged. The counsel for the respondent gave an undertaking that they will be produced for cross- examination, as and when required. The appellant undertook to produce them on the dates directed by the Additional Family Court. Insofar as the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., it was brought to the High Court's notice that already the Family Court had initiated proceedings as Cr. Misc Case No. 1 of 2019. Definitely, the same has to be taken to its logical conclusion by reference to a Jurisdictional Magistrate, if necessary, on orders of the Family Court or by closing it. The Court called for Judges papers of C. Misc. no. 451 of 2019, wherein the wife had claimed for enhancement of maintenance amount. It recorded that on October 17, 2019, from the records of the C. Misc Case that a Single Judge had directed the Income Tax returns for the relevant periods to be furnished, which was not done. Again, an order was passed on November 21, 2019, reiterating the order of October 17, 2019. The petitioner did not even then file the returns and by order dated August 1, 2024, again an order was passed directing furnishing of up to date Income Tax returns. Admittedly, the returns have not been filed till date. The counsel for the petitioner-husband pointed out that he had filed an application as earlier as in 2019 itself, in the C.Misc Case seeking to recall the order, of production of returns. The petitioner-husband had also sought for production of the Income Tax returns in a sealed cover, for perusal of the Court only. The said application was not considered. The counsel for the respondent-husband, undertook that, the income returns from the financial year in which the divorce case was filed, would be produced within ten days. The counsel for the respondent- husband also submitted that, in one financial year, when his father died, his income was much more, for reason of his having inherited from his father; which definitely was to be reckoned while considering the income of the husband for the purpose of awarding maintenance to the wife.
 

Justice Chandra's judgement reads: " 15. We request the learned Single Judge to expeditiously consider the matter and if possible ensure that an order is passed in the winter session itself, in C. Misc Case. 16. We had called for a report from the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna as to the payment of maintenance. A report has been placed before this Court, in which it has been stated that the interim maintenance has been paid up to May, 2024. The learned Counsel for the respondent-husband submits that interim maintenance has been paid up to date, the receipts of which will be produced before the learned Single Judge. We leave the issue of payment of interim-maintenance as directed by the Family Court to be
considered by the learned Single Judge before whom is placed the C. Misc Case."

In this backdrop, Justice Chandran observed: "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 party 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." 

 

Justice Chandran also observed; "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."

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.