Patna High Court delivered 12 judgments on January 9, 2026 in Dr. Mona Bala vs. The Patna University, Nitu Kumari @ Sulekha Kumari vs. Kundan Kumar, Priyanka Kumari vs. Rupesh Kumar @ Akshay Kumar, Firoj Ansari, vs. The State of Bihar, Michael Francis vs. The Bihar School Examination Board, Sujeet Kumar vs. The Bihar School Examination Board, Ranjeet Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Veena Kumari vs. The State of Bihar, Md. Taufique Ahmed Ansari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Manish Kumar Ray vs. The State of Bihar, Laddu Sahani vs. The State of Bihar, Virendra Sah @ Birendra Sah vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Prohibition, Excise Registration Department, Bihar and Md. Jahid vs. The State of Bihar, through Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.
In Dr. Mona Bala vs. The Patna University through Vice-Chancellor, Patna University, Patna (2026), High Court's Division Bench upheld the 4-page long judgement by High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sudhir Singh, wherein the order by Justice Anil Kumar Sinha was upheld.
In his 8-page long order Justice Sinha had concluded: "20. The petitioner’s claim for a formal teaching experience certificate from the Registrar of the Patna University lacks legal basis. In the absence of formal appointment letter, payment of salary, attendance register or any service record maintained by the University, it is difficult for this Court to direct the Statutory Authority to issue certificate, contrary to be University’s circular, norms and procedures. 21. Accordingly, this court does not find any procedural or substantive regularity/illegality in the action of the respondents-authorities."
In the 6th judgement authored by Chief Justice Sahoo, he concluded:"Nothing was produced before the learned Single Judge or before this Court that the Statutory Authority is empowered to issue experience certificate also in favour of the person who has taken few classes in the University without having been appointed. Therefore, if the act of non-issuance of the experience certificate by the University is not against any circular, law or any procedure, we do not find any fault with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Moreover, in view of the limited scope of interference in the Letters Patent Appeal, we find no perversity in the impugned order and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 4. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed." Chief Justice Sahoo endorsed Justice Sinha's order dated May 1, 2025.
In Manish Kumar Ray vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sudhir Singh, delivered a 2-page long judgement upon hearing the Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner seeking immediate stoppage of the illegal construction of PACS Building over the Cremation ground of Mouza Jajauli Thana No. 83 Khata No. 102 and Survey No.2171 appertaining to its area 57 decimal since the Respondent No. 5 without verifying the nature and its uses of the land given the no objection for construction of PACS building over the Khatiyani Land under subject. He had sought removal of the illegal construction of the PACS building and to restore its status/position as before of the Cremation ground. The counsel for the State stated that in Khata No. 102, Survey No. 2171, Thana No.83, total area 57 decimal of the Village/Mouza Jajauli, District- Saran mentioned as Murghatia in the Revisional Survey Records, the area of the land in question was sufficient for the construction of PACS building. It was also stated that the construction of godown which was stopped by the local villagers was excluded from the recommendation of the PACS and the authorities were working on shifting the godown to some other land and the recommendation had also been made in that respect. In his 7th judgement, Chief Justice Sahoo concluded:"3. In view of such instruction received, the petitioner cannot be said to have any further grievance and accordingly, the writ application stands disposed of."
In Laddu Sahani vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sudhir Singh, delivered a 3-page long judgement, wherein, it concluded:"2. The learned counsel appearing for the NTPC submits that for the death of the labour Sunil Paswan compensation amount has already been paid. It is pointed out from paragraph no.9 of the petition that total Rs. 9 Lacs. compensation has been paid to the family members of the deceased. He further submits that the family members are not coming up to this Court raising any grievance against the death of the labour and the petitioner has no locus to file such a petition without any cogent material and without any basis. 3. In view of such submission, we find that there is no public interest involved in this case and it appears to be a personal interest litigation of the petitioner. We were contemplating to impose cost on the petitioner, but with all caution, we are refraining from passing any such order and accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of." This 8th judgement authored by Chief Justice Sahoo was passed upon hearing a writ application in the nature of Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the Respondent 1st set to make enquiry about the death of Sunil Paswan son of Lala Paswan, resident of Village- Bhaisaha, P.S. Kanti, District –Muzaffarpur by falling the soil during the course of discharging the work of labourer due to negligence on the part of the Respondent 2nd set and without lodging any U.D. Case in the Kanti Police Station as well as without conducting any post-mortem of the deceased Sunil Paswan, the Respondent 2nd set disposed of the dead body and closed the matter. He had also prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities to take suitable action against the erring persons of the NTPC administration on whose negligence such type incident had been taken place since the works are being taken by the NTPC administration from the outsider as well as unskilled labour through the contractor as also the labourers were not provided safety materials and the unregistered vehicles were being used in mining work.
In Firoj Ansari, vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sudhir Singh, delivered a 4-page long judgement, wherein, it concluded:"3. When we posed the pertinent question to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in terms of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (for brevity ‘Act’) whether any application has been filed before the concerned authority, the learned counsel has referred to Page No. 44 of the brief, from which we find that it relates to a representation filed before the District Magistrate, Bettiah in respect of only one plot. However, in the writ petition several plot numbers have been mentioned in which it is stated that encroachments have been made by different persons. 4. It is open to the petitioner to file a proper application before the concerned authority, i.e., Respondent No. 3, highlighting all those plot numbers in question, so that necessary procedure can be resorted to in accordance with the Act. 5. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of."
The 9th judgement authored by Chief Justice Sahoo was passed upon hearing the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction upon the Respondent state Authority/Authorities for ensuring early and enduring removal of encroachment and illegal occupation/control over Public Land registered in the Survey Khatiyan in the nature of Gair Mazrua Malik covered under Khata No.04 relating to plot No.403 situated at Mauza- Ratanmala measuring 4 Kattha & 8 Dhur, Khata no.346, relating to plot no.133 situated at Mauza-Bagaha Measuring an area of 3 Kattha, 13 Dhur, Khata No.346 relating to plot no.104 measuring an area of 03 Kattha situated at Mauza-Bagaha Khas, Khata No.346, Plot No.134, situated at Mauza-Bagaha Khas measuring an area of 20 decimal, Khata No.346 relating to Plot no.134/6 at Mauza-Bagaha Khas measuring 10 decimal of land, Khata no.346 relating to plot no.104 situated at Mauza-Bagaha measuring 01 Bigha 01 Katha and 15 Dhur, Khata No.57 relating to plot no.222 situated at Mauza- Bagaha measuring an area of 11.17 but decimal of land and last but not the least, khata no.357 relating to plot no.1156, 1305 and 1306 at Mauza- Ratanmala measuring 29.08 decimal of land which at the moment stands illegally and collusively mutated in favour of unscrupulous persons and land grabbers conspiring together with the concerned Revenue/Administrative Authorities at Bagaha in the district of West Champaran resulting in substantial damage and loss of property to the state of Bihar and public at large. He also sought issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction upon the concerned State Authority/Authorities for constituting a body/team of Senior responsible Officers entrusted with the task to identify such public land at Bagaha/ West Champaran which is public land but under illegal and wrongful private control/occupation of land grabbers/encroachers who have vested private interest in relation to such public land and further enquire about collusion and complicity of the Revenue/Administrative Officer/s posted at Bagaha at different points of time in order to fix accountability against such unscrupulous officials causing loss to the state property.He further prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for instituting Criminal and departmental proceeding against such Revenue/Administrative Officers who are prima facie found responsible for allowing/permitting/ facilitating transfer of public land in favour of private persons/land grabbers for having caused damage/loss to the state property.
No comments:
Post a Comment