Supreme Court waives cost imposed by Patna High Court's Division Bench in a matter of service termination

In Shashi Prakash vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justice  anjay Karol and Augustine George Masih passed a 2-page long order dated March 25, 2026. The petitioner had challenged the order dated January 8, 2024 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12099/2023 by Justice Mohit K. Shah and 2-page long order dated September 17, 2025 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.229/2024 passed by Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Alok Kumar Sinha of the Patna High Court. Supreme Court's order reads: "4. Petitioner can take recourse to such remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law and in terms of the liberty already granted by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 08.01.2024. Insofar as the cost imposed by the learned Division Bench is concerned, the same is waived off. If the amount is already deposited, the same shall be refunded forthwith to the petitioner." 

In the order authored by Justice Bajanthri had observed: "....it is crystal clear that at the behest of learned counsel for the petitioner, both the litigations have been withdrawn. Upon that the appellant has assailed the aforementioned orders in the present LPA. 3. Thus the LPA is not maintainable, accordingly, the present LPA stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Cost shall be remitted in the Lawyers’ Association Welfare Benevolent Fund, Indian Bank...."

Prior to this, in his order as Single Judge, Justice Shah had recorded that in the  writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ in nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 31.05.1997 as contained in Memo No. 3177 dated 02.06.1997, passed by Respondent No. 2 communicated to the Respondent No. 4 vide Memo No. 442 dated 24.06.1997, by the Respondents No. 3 for its communicated the petitioner by the Respondent No. 3. Thereafter Memo No. 533 dated 24.06.1996 and Memo No. 7684 dated 29.08.1995 by which the service of the petitioner has been terminated on entirely non est ground. As post has been abolished issued by Respondent No. 3 and petitioner was relieved form his service and for issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the his post at Gaya and not to interfere with them duties and also to make payment of his salary regularly with entire dues amount and pass order or orders, writ or writs and direction or directions.” Justice Shah had also recorded that the counsel for the petitioner sought not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law, for redressal of the aforesaid grievances. Liberty, so sought, is granted. 3. The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed." 

The other three respondents were:Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Regional Animal Husbandry Department,through the Regional Animal Husbandry Director Magadh Range, Area, Gaya and District Animal Husbandry Department,through the District Animal Husbandry Officer Magadh Range, Gaya.