In Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Alok Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court delivered as 35-page long judgement dated April 27, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"this Court is of the considered view that the impugned action has been taken strictly in accordance with law. The decision-making authority has been duly exercised by the competent officer, and the subsequent communication thereof cannot, in any manner, be construed as an impermissible delegation of power. The procedural safeguards mandated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand duly observed and no prejudice or infraction of the petitioner's rights is made out. The transfer of the petitioner, founded upon relevant material including administrative recommendations and security considerations, reflects a bona fide and reasoned exercise of statutory power. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of substance and unsupported by the legal position. Hence, the petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order and the contention of the learned counsel for the State is quite tenable and sustainable in the light of the given facts and circumstances of the present case. 42. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order calls for no interference and stands affirmed in law. Consequently, the present criminal writ petition stands dismissed."
The other five respondents were: Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Assistant Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, District Magistrate, Patna and Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
Ritlal Yadav, the petitioner had prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s, quashing the order dated October 30, 2025 issued by the Assistant Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 29(3) of the Prisoners Act, 1900 read with Rule 781(vii) of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, whereby the earlier transfer order dated April 30, 2025, transferring the petitioner from Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna to Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur (Tritya Khand) was extended for a further period of six months, on the basis of the report/recommendation of the District Magistrate, Patna and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. The petitioner prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s, commanding the respondents to declare the impugned order dated October 30, 2025 as illegal, void and non est in the eye of law, to restrain the Respondents from giving effect to or acting in furtherance of the impugned order dated October 30, 2025 and to hold and declare that the impugned order cannot operate or be given effect to, the same being in the teeth of the judicial order dated August 7, 2025 passed in a Special Case of 2018 by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-III cum Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A. Court, Patna and to direct the Respondents to lodge and keep the petitioner at Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna, and not at Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur.
The judgement records that petitioner has multiple criminal cases pending against him, which includes 11 cases mentioned in para 22 of the writ petition, 25 cases as per entry register dated November 23, 2025 and 8 cases as per entry register dated February 10, 2020 and on the said aspect administrative decision was taken to transfer and the confidential report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna was quite evident in the light of the facts and circumstance of the case.
The judgement reads: "The settled principle encapsulated in the Latin maxim delegatus non potest delegare that a delegate cannot further delegate-applies only where there is a transfer of decision-making authority. In the present case, no such transfer has occurred. The decision stood duly taken by the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna in exercise of his statutory powers. The Assistant Inspector General, Prisons (Region), Bihar, Patna has neither exercised independent discretion nor assumed any decision-making role, but has merely communicated the decision so taken. In these circumstances, the aforesaid maxim has no application. 37. A plain reading of the impugned order clearly
establishes that, upon due approval of the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, the order was communicated under the signature of the Assistant Inspector General, Prisons (Region), as is evident from Annexure-P/1. The impugned order is, in substance, a continuation of the earlier order of incarceration in the said jail, pursuant to the petitioner's prior transfer vide Memo No. 3161 dated 30.04.2025, and has been issued only after obtaining the requisite approval of the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services. 38. Notably, no objection has been raised by the petitioner on the aspect of such approval. The impugned order also discloses the reasons necessitating the continuation of the earlier arrangement, founded upon the communications of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. In particular, reliance has been placed on the recommendation contained in Letter No. 2517/General dated 30.10.2025 of the District Magistrate, Patna, and Letter No. 14159/confidential dated 29.10.2025 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. The extension was necessitated on account of credible information regarding criminal conspiracy during the petitioner's stay in Model Central Jail, Beur, Patna. 39. A bare perusal of the relevant provisions makes it clear that the concerned authority has merely communicated the order upon obtaining due and requisite approval from the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna. The Assistant Inspector General, Prisons (Region), Bihar, Patna has not exercised any independent decision-making authority but has acted strictly in accordance with such approval, and the order bears his signature only by way of formal communication."
Justice Pandey observed: "It is, therefore, evident that the communication of the order cannot be equated with delegation of power, as sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notably, the petitioner has not disputed the factum of prior approval by the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna."
No comments:
Post a Comment