Dismissed

Mukut Singh @ Mukut v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC18 Jul 2024CWJC/8004/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as misconceived and an abuse of process, finding it was filed to agitate a private vendetta against a single respondent regarding disability benefits and appointment. The Court held that the petitioner lacked bona fides and could not invoke Article 226 for a roving inquiry into disability certificates, imposing costs on the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable to Bihar State Legal Services Authority.

Mukut Singh @ Mukut Vs The State Of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8004 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Mukut Singh @ Mukut son of Babu Singh Resident of Village- Saidalampur, P.O -Logadh, P.S. -Athrauli, District -Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar, Through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna

¶7

The Additional Chief Secretary General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶8

The Additional Chief Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶9

The Additional Chief Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶10

The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶11

The Director General of Police Bihar, Patna

¶12

The Chairman Central Selection Board (Constable) Bihar, Patna

¶13

The Secretary, Central Selection Board (Constable) Bihar, Patna

¶14

The District Magistrate Samastipur

¶15

The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur

¶16

The District Social Welfare Officer, Samastipur

¶17

The District Magistrate Jamui

¶18

The Superintendent of Police Jamui

¶19

Krishna Kumar son of Ganor Mandal Resident of village Kharsam, Post Office- Parsa, Police Station Hathauri, District Samastipur. At present posted as constable in Bihar Police Under the Superintendent of Police Jamui.

¶20

... ... Respondent/s

¶21

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

¶22

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kundan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate Mr. Huzaifa, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar, AC to AG For Respondent Nos. 7 & 8: Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Advocate

¶23

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

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.8004 of 2024 dt.18-07-2024 2/4

¶25

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶26

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶27

Date : 18-07-2024

¶28

The petitioner seeks various reliefs purportedly to ensure that the disability certificates are issued properly and none who is not disabled gets the benefit of the reservation made to various posts under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

¶29

The petitioner, to ventilate his grievance, has spoken of only one example being the 14^th respondent who is said to have been issued with a disability certificate of 40 per cent, which enabled him to be a beneficiary under the Bihar State Disability Pension Scheme (BDPS) and also obtain an appointment as a Constable in the advertisement issued by the Central Selection Board of Constables (CSBC) on 11.11.2020.

¶30

The general reliefs prayed for by the petitioner is only to agitate the cause against the 14^th respondent who is appointed under the disability quota. It is trite that if the petitioner has an objection against the appointment of a disabled person; who is not entitled to claim such disability, necessarily appropriate authorities would have to be approached first. We also pertinently observe that the advertisement itself is of the year 2020 and there is nothing stated as to when the 14^th respondent was appointed.

¶31

Further, the representations submitted by the petitioner,

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.8004 of 2024 dt.18-07-2024 3/4

¶33

which are produced as Annexure P-7 series, are regarding verification of disability certificates issued by the Civil Surgeoncum-Chief Medical Officers of different districts of Bihar. The petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 to go into a roving inquiry into all the disability certificates issued.

¶34

We find the writ petition to be misconceived and it can be inferred that the petitioner’s grievance is with respect to the 14^th respondent’s appointment. The petitioner has wantonly approached this Court to ventilate a private vendetta in a Public Interest Litigation, without any bona fides . There is also not sufficient material to substantiate the contention of improper Disability Certificates being granted by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officers.

¶35

We find absolutely no reason to entertain the writ petition and finding the Public Interest Litigation to be agitating the cause against a single person, that too with respect of an appointment the party respondent obtained, we impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) on the petitioner, payable to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority. The said amount will have to be paid within a period of two weeks, failing which the Bihar State Legal Services Authority will be entitled to proceed for recovery by taking measures similar to recovery of arrears due on land through the District Magistrate, in which event the petitioner shall also be liable for the charges incurred for making such recovery, which have to be recovered by the State.

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.8004 of 2024 dt.18-07-2024 4/4

¶37

Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the

¶38

Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority.

¶39

The writ petition stands dismissed with costs.

¶40

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶41

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶42

P.K.P./-

¶43

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 20.07.2024 Transmission Date

Mukut Singh @ Mukut v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukut Singh @ Mukut v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Bhagwati Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Konark Coke Industries Partnership Firm Vs The State of Bihar

The State Election Commission (Panchayat) Vs The State of Bihar

Md Abul Hasan Vs The State Of Bihar

Satish Kumar Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Ramchandra Singh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar