The High Court reponded that the petition was premature as the petitioner had an available statutory remedy of appeal. The court dismissed the petition to lay off the memo regarding the petitioner's official works.
The petition was disposed of without allowing the prayer for quashing of Memo No. 2940.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1166 of 2022
======================================================
Anil Kumar Singh, Son of Late Balmiki Prasad Singh, resident of Chak Ahmad Bhikhanpura, P.S.-Sadar (Muzaffarpur), Dist-Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Rajpati For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP-18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-04-2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief/reliefs:
“For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order at contained in Memo No. 2940 dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure-1) issued by the Circle Officer, Saraiya (Respondent No. 3) by which he has been relieved from all works of all Halka/Panchayat and has been directed to deposit all the records under his charge in Circle Office and list of the records be handed over to the In-charge Circle
Patna High Court CWJC No.1166 of 2022 dt.19-04-2022
2/3
Inspector namely Sudama Rai within 24 hours.”
By way of supplementary affidavit, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:
“For quashing the Memo No. 2940 dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure-1) of the writ application. The said memo has been issued by the Circle Officer, Saraiya (Respondent No.3) by which he has been relieved from all the works of Halka/Panchayat.”
The petitioner has not made out a prima facie case to entertain the present petition on the score that present petition is premature for the reasons that petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal before the appellate authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been provided subsistence allowance despite there is direction of the District Magistrate. If there is any violation of the orders of the District Magistrate by his subordinates, in that event, the petitioner has to approach the District Magistrate complaining that his subordinate officers are disobeying the orders of the District Magistrate in respect of non-payment of the subsistence allowance, the same is not
Patna High Court CWJC No.1166 of 2022 dt.19-04-2022 3/3
forthcoming from the records.
Therefore, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner
is hereby rejected reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate in respect of payment of subsistence allowance. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the suspension order, in that event, he is permitted to file appeal before the appellate authority.
Appellate authority to consider petitioner’s appeal within two months from the date of receipt of appeal/representation.
With the above observation, the present petition stands disposed off.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
Ankit/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 22.04.2022 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition seeking quashing of an order relieving the petitioner from works is maintainable when a statutory appeal is available.
Whether non-payment of subsistence allowance warrants equitable relief in this writ petition.
Anil Kumar Singh
The State of Bihar
P. B. Bajanthri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
