Dismissed

Harishankar Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC19 Jul 2019CWJC/5121/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition seeking a general direction to the Excise Department to purchase Neera from tappers. The court held that no general direction can be issued and the petitioner failed to approach the Excise Commissioner first. An opportunity to approach the Commissioner was granted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to approach the Excise Commissioner within 3 months.

Harishankar Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5121 of 2018

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Harishankar Choudhary S/o- Nagendra Choudhary, resident of VillageKushar, P.S.- Tariyani, District- Sheohar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

The Excise Superintendent, Excise Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner of Excise, District- Sheohar.

¶9

The District Magistrate, Sheohar.

¶10

The Additional Excise Inspector, Sheohar.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravindra Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Lalit Kishore- AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶13

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN)

¶14

3 19-07-2019 Mr. Ravindra Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Advocate General for the State.

¶15

Having noted the issue raised in this writ petition which requires a direction to the Government in its Excise Department to purchase Neera from the tapper, since after the enforcement of the Bihar Neera (Unfermented Juice of Palms) Rules, 2017, since the relief concerns an individual in particular, no general directions can be issued. Even otherwise the petitioner having failed to approach the concerned Department with his cause, no mandamus can be issued because a

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.5121 of 2018(3) dt.19-07-2019 2/2

¶17

representation to the Chief Minister would not fill up this gap.

¶18

According to learned Advocate General, the Excise Commissioner would be the appropriate authority to consider the grievance and for its disposal.

¶19

While thus holding that no general direction on the prayer made can be issued in the present jurisdiction, we allow the petitioner to espouse his cause before the Excise Commissioner who shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law with opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶22

( Partha Sarthy, J)

¶23

Bibhash/-

¶24

Harishankar Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishankar Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunila Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Kalika Cooling System Vs The State of Bihar

Ruplal Ray @ Ruplal Prashad Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Anand Sharan Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Bambam Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Mogees Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.