B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur directed to appoint the petitioner as ‘Assistant Professor’ at Ram Shreshta Singh College, Muzaffarpur with consequential benefits

In Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 22-page long judgement dated November 17, 2025 wherein, he allowed the writ application. He concluded:"....the concerned authorities of B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur are directed to take steps towards placing the matter of appointment of the petitioner against the third sanctioned post of ‘Assistant Professor’ in Physics at Ram Shreshta Singh College, Chochahan, PO-Anirudha Belsar, District-Muzaffarpur before the Statutory Approval Seniority and Pay Fixation Committee of the University as well as the syndicate of the University for its approval, within one month from the date of passing of this order and the respondent authorities under the University be directed to consider the matter of appointment of the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under Section 57A of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 and to approve the same in accordance with law. The Respondent Authorities under the college be also directed to extend all the consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner within three months after approval of his appointment by the Statutory Approval Seniority and Pay Fixation Committee as well as the syndicate of the University."

The other five respondents were:.B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, through its Registrar, Vice Chancellor, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Registrar, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, Ramshreshtha Singh College and Principal, Ramshreshtha Singh College, Chochahan, Belsar, Muzaffarpur. 

The petitioner had prayed for issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities under the B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to take steps towards placing the matter of appointment of the petitioner against the third sanctioned post of Assistant Professor in Physics at Ramshreshtha Singh College, Belsar, Muzaffarpur before the statutory Approval, Seniority and Pay Fixation Committee of the University as well as the Syndicate of the University for its approval. He had also prayed for issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities under the University to consider the matter of the appointment of the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under section 57A of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and approve the same in accordance with law. 

The petitioner further sought issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities under the College to extend all the consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner after approval of his appointment by the statutory Approval, Seniority and Pay Fixation Committee as well as the Syndicate of the University, 

Title of testatrix in the bequeathed property is not a subject matter for adjudication in Testamentary Suit: ustice S. B. Pd. Singh

In Dr. Vivek Sinha & Anr. vs. Smt. Seema Prasad @ Smt. Seema Dyakriti & Anr. (2025), Justice S. B. Pd. Singh of Patna High Court delivered a 12-page long judgement dated November 15, 2025, wherein, he concluded:"8. After hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner, it is clear that although the relief No. 3, sought for in the plaint, has been decided up-to the appellate stage in the Test Suit No. 06 of 1997 but the relief Nos. 1 & 2 of the plaint have not been decided till date and this dispute is still in existence between the parties which requires adjudication by the Trial Court. It is upheld by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 570 of 2015 :-“ it is a settled proposition of law that in a testamentary suit only the genuinity and validity of the Will is decided and title of the testatrix in the bequeathed property is not a subject matter for adjudication in Testamentary Suit.” 9. It is clear from the aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Division Bench that title of the testatrix in the bequeathed property was not decided because it was not subject matter for adjudication on the Testamentary Suit. So, relief No. 1 & 2, sought for in Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997 is yet to be decided. 10. Hence, I find that there is no illegality and impropriety in the Impugned Order, dated 21.08.2018, passed by the learned Sub Judge 2nd, Patna in Misc. Case No. 03 of 2014 (B). So, it is upheld and accordingly, the instant Civil Misc. No. 1644 of 2018 stands dismissed. 11. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case expeditiously, at the earliest.

The Civil Misc. was filed for setting aside the order dated August 21, 2018 passed by the Sub Judge 2nd, Patna in Misc. Case No. 03 of 2014 (B) whereby the court allowed the Misc. Case filed by opposite party first set under provision of Order IX Rule 9 of the C.P.C. for restoration of Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997 and for any other writ/command or order which may be fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was submitted by counsel for the petitioner that opposite party 1st set had filed the Misc. Case No. 03 of 2014 (B) for restoration of the Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997 which was dismissed for default on July 31, 2003 due to non- appearance on behalf of both the plaintiffs. In that suit plaintiff No. 1 was her father K.K. Sinha and she was named as plaintiff No. 2. This partition suit was filed against the late father of these petitioners Late Bimal Sinha. It was also submitted that the title partition suit was filed by her and her father in the year 1997 and continued upto July 2003 when neither her father nor she led any Pairvi in the said suit for last several dates. Her father thereafter was also alive for more than 7 years, he died on 9.12.2010 after the dismissal of the title partition suit but she did not took any steps for restoration of partition suit. After 4 years of her father’s death she became clever and due to her greedy nature had filed this Misc. case on wrong and false pleas that she had no knowledge during 11 years about the order of the  dismissal.

The Misc. case No. 03 of 2014, filed by the respondent was allowed by the impugned order which is under challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous. It was submitted on behalf of respondent–plaintiff that petitioner is the daughter of Late Krishna Kishore Sinha (Plaintiff No. 1 of Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997) and her case is that plaintiff No. 1 - (Krishna Kishore Sinha) of Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997 died on 09.12.2010 at Bhubaneshwar leaving behind a widow and a daughter ( plaintiff No. 2 of Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997) whereas the defendant No. 1 of Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997 died leaving  behind two sons and one daughter. The further case of the petitioner was that although the wife of Krishna Kishore Sinha was alive at the time of filing of said Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997 but the plaintiff No. 1 Krishna Kishore Sinha is not incorporated his wife as party to the suit rather he included the petitioner (daughter) in the same suit. Now, the further case of petitioner was that the father of Krishna Kishore Sinha was looking entire affairs of home. So, neither the petitioner nor her mother were aware about exact property of her maternal family and share therein. As per the case, she came to know about the pendency of Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997 in the month of September and obtained the copies of order sheet and plaint of the said suit in the last week of December 2013 at her residence at Gurgaon and came to know that the said suit was  dismissed for default on dated 31.07.2003 and entire property of her family was under dispute and subject matter of Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997, so the entire share of the petitioner and her mother was involved in the said Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997 and this petition has been filed from the date of knowledge of its dismissal after receiving the entire order sheet and plaint. 

After hearing both parties, it appears that Krishna Kishore Sinha and his daughter, Seema Prasad (the present respondent), were the plaintiffs in Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997, which was dismissed for default on 31.07.2003. According to the submission of respondent Seema Prasad, the pairvi in the said case was being conducted by her father, who subsequently passed away on 09.12.2010. She further stated that after her marriage, she began residing at her matrimonial home and, therefore, remained unaware of the status of Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997, although she claims to have subsisting right, title, and interest in the suit property. Upon learning of the dismissal of the aforesaid suit, she instituted Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2014. In the said proceeding, evidence was adduced by both sides,
and after considering the entire materials and submissions on record, the learned trial court allowed the
Miscellaneous Case after condoning the delay, and restored Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997 to its original stage based on the grounds advanced by the plaintiff- respondent.

The thrust of argument on behalf of petitioner was that point of limitation and sufficient cause for filing
delayed application Order IX Rule 9 fo the C.Pc. was not applied in a right perspective. On this point, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent referred the case of :
(A) Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His Legal Representative, reported in [2024] 4 S.C.R. 76 2024 INSC 262, Civil Appeal No. 4672/2024 decided on 03.04.2024 during course of discussion Hon’ble Apex Court referred the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649, and observed that:
“ 21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: 21.1. (I) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
21.2. (ii) The terms ‘sufficient cause’ should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper
perspective to the obtaining fact‐situation. 
21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
21.4 (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
21.5 (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
21.6 (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
21.7 (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 
21.8 (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
21.9 (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 
21.10 (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
21.11 (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by
taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
21.12 (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 

21.13 (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.”
(B) Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives and Others vs. Union Of
India and Another, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 531, in which it is held :-
“ (e) – For such an application for condonation to be seen in a positive light, the same should be bona fide, based on true and plausible explanations, and should reflect the normal conduct of a common prudent person – Further, the explained delay should be clearly understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay to warrant a condonation.
(f) – What counted was indeed the sufficiency of the cause of delay, and not the length, where the shortness of delay would be considered when using extraordinary discretion to condone the same – Courts should attempt to decide a case on its merit, unless the same is hopelessly without merit.”

Justice Singh observed: "On the anvil of aforesaid principle of Hon’ble Apex Court, it appears that the case should be decided on its merit and procedural latches should not come in the way of final decision of the case. Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly upheld that the Court should attempt to decide a case on merit unless the same is hopelessly without merit. In Title Partition Suit No. 122 of 1997, filed by plaintiff –respondent has not been decided on merit, rather it was dismissed in default. Mainly 03 reliefs have been sought for in that suit, apart from other ancillary reliefs.

Petitioner directed to make an appropriate representation under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act

In Birendra Kumar Nidhi vs.The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary to the Government, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma delivered a 2-page long judgement dated November 1, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"4. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to make an appropriate representation before the competent authority under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, who shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of such representation, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of." 

This was the tenth judgement authored by Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh. The other six respondents were: The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga, District Magistrate, Madhubani, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Madhubani, Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Madhubani, Sub- Divisional Officer, Madhubani, Saslar, Madhubani and Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Madhubani. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that public land was encroached by some local persons.

Petitioner directed to approach Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gaya to prevent cruelty against animals in Slaughter House: Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh

In Jyoti Khandelwal, Advocate vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma delivered a 3-page long judgement dated November 1, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"...the petitioner is directed to approach the Respondent No.5, who shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 4. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of." This was the ninth judgement authored by Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh.  

The other seven respondents were: Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Additional Chief Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department, Government of Bihar, Chairman, Bihar Pollution Control Board, Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gaya, Chairman, Animal Welfare Board of India, District Magistrate cum Chairman Committee for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Gaya and Senior Superintendent of Police cum Vice Chairman Committee for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Gaya.

The petitioner had prayed for the issuance of a rule in the nature of writ of mandamus to issue directions to the Respondent nos. 1  to 9 to perform duty to save innocent bovine and to prevent cruelty against the animals and save their lives in Slaughter House running in municipal building at Bari Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Gaya. She had also sought issuance of a rule in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to make investigation/enquiry of slaughter houses licensed or unlicensed running in Gaya, for the issuance of a rule in the nature of writ of mandamus to issue direction to the respondent No.6 Municipal Commissioner to make proper enquiry regarding the permission for number of animals, slaughtered per day, fitness certificate issued by the veterinary doctor, maximum number of animals permitted to be slaughtered, water facility, resting area, drainage system and above all the implementation of the Transportation of Animals Rules 1978 and Notification GSR 546 (E) dated 8th July 2015 by the Ministry of road transport and highways which make this mandatory to have separate cabin for each cattle and limit the number of animals to 6 only in a vehicles apart from other  provisions of special permit, fitness certificates. She had also prayed for the issuance of a rule in the nature of writ of mandamus to issue direction to the respondent nos. 8 and 9, District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police whether implementation of Livestock Market Rules 2017 for purchase of animals by the slaughter house has been complied by the person running the slaughter house in municipal building, for the issuance of a rule in the nature of writ of mandamus for submit a report about the action taken if any by respondent nos. 1 and 9 against the licensed/unlicensed slaughter houses running in Gaya,  for the issuance of a rule in the nature of writ of mandamus for submit a report about the action taken if any by respondent no. 7 Chairman, Animal Welfare Board of India against the licensed/unlicensed slaughter houses running in Gaya as the respondent no. 7 is empowered to make inspection of slaughter house under Slaughter House Rules 2001 and further to work for welfare of animals and for the issuance of a rule in the nature of writ of mandamus to issue direction to the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Environment Department and Pollution Control Board Chairman, to make inspection and take action against the licensed/unlicensed slaughter houses running in Gaya for implementation of environmental and water air pollution laws.

"we find no reason to pass any further order in the present matter": Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh

In Ajay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma delivered a 2-page long judgement dated November 1, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"3. Since the matter has already been considered by the authority concerned, we find no reason to pass any further order in the present matter. The same stands disposed off." This was the eighth judgement authored by Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh.  

The other eight respondents were: The Additional Chief Secretary, Food and Consumer Department, Bihar, Additional Chief Secretary, Co-operative Department, Bihar, District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari, District Co-operative Officer, East Champaran, Motihari, Block Co-operative Officer, Sadar Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director, District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd, East Champaran at Motihari and Umesh Prasad, Chairman of Uttari Dhekaha PACS, East Champaran. 

The petitioner had prayed for a direction to the respondent concerned to enquire into the irregularity and misappropriation of the government money by Respondent No.9 (Chairman of Uttari Dhekaha PACS) in procurement of Paddy at minimum support price during the Financial Year 2020-21 to 2024-25 in as much as the Procurement of Paddy has been shown in the name of Farmers who are landless labourers or in other ways by committing fraud the funds have been misappropriated in the name of Procurement of Paddy but neither the Respondent BSFC nor the concerned Department of Government of Bihar is taking any heed on this issue in spite of the complaint made by the petitioner. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that a complaint was made before the Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation, Ltd. The matter was already looked into by the concerned Officer and an order was passed. 

Petotioner granted liberty to approach Supreme Court in stray dogs case: Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh

In Ajit Kumar Pandey vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma delivered a 2-page long judgement dated November 1, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"if the petitioner has any grievance to it, he shall be at liberty to make an appropriate application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised. 5. With the aforesaid liberty, the present writ petition stands disposed of." This was the seventh judgement authored by Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh. The second respondent was Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna. 

The petitioner had prayed for direction to the respondents to implement in Patna the measures mandated by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated August 11, 2025 in a Suo Motu Writ Petition, including capture, sterilization, immunization, and permanent relocation of all stray/community dogs to secure purpose-built shelters, within a strict and fixed time frame. He had sought direction to direct the respondents to construct, operationalise, and/or upgrade shelter facilities in Patna with adequate capacity, trained manpower, sterilization units, veterinary care, and 24-hour CCTV surveillance, to direct the respondents to establish in Patna a dedicated 24x7 helpline for reporting dog-bite incidents and aggressive stray dog behaviour, ensuring on-ground action within a maximum of four hours; and to direct the respondents to maintain verifiable daily records of stray dogs captured, sterilized, vaccinated, and sheltered, and to file periodic compliance reports before the High Court. The Advocate General appearing for the State, submitted that the issue raised in the writ petition was already sub judice before the Supreme Court and the same WAs being pursued in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil)No.05 of 2025.

In Birendra Kumar Nidhi vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary to the Government, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), the eighth judgement authored by Justice Singh concluded: "In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to make an appropriate representation before the competent authority under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, who shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of such representation, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders."

In Jyoti Khandelwal, Advocate and Animal Activist vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors.(2025), the ninth judgement authored by Justice Singh concluded:"...the petitioner is directed to approach the Respondent No.5, who shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law." The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gaya was the Respondent No.5.

In Ajay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), the tenth judgement authored by Justice Singh concluded:"Since the matter has already been considered by the authority concerned, we find no reason to pass any further order in the present matter. The same stands disposed off."

In Ram Babu Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), the eleventh judgement authored by Justice Singh concluded:"the petitioner is directed to make an appropriate application before the Respondent No. 5 under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, who shall consider and pass an appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of such representation, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of." The Respondent No. 5 is the Circle Officer, Barhara, Bhojpur.

In Ashutosh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Saharsa & Ors. (2025), the twelfth judgement authored by Justice Singh concluded: "the petitioner is directed to make an appropriate application before the Respondent No. 5 under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, who shall consider and pass an appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of such representation, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties." The Circle Officer, Saur Bazar Anchal, Saharsa is the Respondent No. 5. 

In Md. Shadab vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), the thirteenth judgement Justice Singh concluded:"3. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the transfer policy of the State, by virtue of which transfer and posting of the teachers are being made, has been challenged. None of the transferred teachers/Head Masters has approached this Court. Apparently, it appears that it is a sponsored litigation. 4. We find no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same the dismissed."

Circle Officer, Barhara, Bhojpur directed to pass order under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act within nine months: Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh

In Ram Babu Singh vs.The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma delivered a 2-page long judgement dated November 1, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"the petitioner is directed to make an appropriate application before the Respondent No. 5 under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, who shall consider and pass an appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of such representation, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of." The respondent no. 5 was Circle Officer, Barhara, Bhojpur. This was the sixth judgement authored by Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh. 

The other six respondents were: District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara, Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara, Sub-Divisional Officer, Ara Sadar, Bhojpur, Circle Officer, Barhara, Bhojpur,Officer-in-Charge, Babura Police Station, Bhojpur, and Smt. Poonam Kumari Singh (61), Wife of Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Gandhi, Semra, Bhojpur.

The petitioner had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent Authorities to immediately remove the illegal encroachment made by Smt. Poonam Kumari Singh (61), the Respondent No. 7 over the public village road in Village Semra, Bhojpur. He had also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to conduct a thorough and time-bound inquiry into the illegal obstruction of the public road and to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against the said Respondent for criminal intimidation and obstruction of public access. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on a public land, encroachment has been made by the private parties.