Dismissed¶29

Ravina Khatun v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Jul 2025CWJC/8602/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Prematurity — maintainability of writ petition — challenge to District Magistrate's letter no. 764 dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure-9) recommending initiation of action under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 against petitioner-Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Sitanabad, Saharsa — no order passed against petitioner, no action initiated — no accrued right to move writ jurisdiction — writ application dismissed as non-maintainable — CWJC No.8602 of 2025, Patna High Court, decision date 11-07-2025, Alok Kumar Sinha, J. No precedent cited; no costs or quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ application was dismissed as pre-mature and non-maintainable, with consent of the parties, at the present stage itself. ¶29

Ravina Khatun Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8602 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Ravina Khatun Wife of Md. Safiqueuddin at Present Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Sitanabad South, Bareba Tola, Ward no.14 P.S. Simribakhtiyarpur District-Saharsa.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Department of Panchayati Raj Bihar Patna.

¶7

Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj Bihar Patna.

¶8

Commissioner, Koshi Range Saharsa.

¶9

District Election Officer (Panchayat) Cum District Magistrate, Saharsa.

¶10

District Panchayati Raj Officer, Saharsa.

¶11

Sub-Divisional Officer Simribakhtiyarpur District-Saharsa.

¶12

Block Development Officer Cum Election Officer (Panchayat) Simribakhtiyarpur District-Saharsa.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Adv Mr. Surya Prakash Vishwas, Adv Ms. Varsh Rani, Adv For the Respondent/s : Ms. Kumari Amrita, Government Pleader 03 Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to G.P.-3 ======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶16

2 11-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶17

counsel appearing for respondent-State.

¶18

2. With the consent of both the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the present stage itself.

¶19

3. In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of letter no. 764 dated 29.03.2025 issued by the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, Saharsa to the Block Development Officer-cum-Election Officer

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.8602 of 2025(2) dt.11-07-2025 2/3

¶21

(Panchayat), District- Saharsa, whereby the District Magistrate has asked the Block Development Officer-cum-Election Officer (Panchayat), Saharsa to initiate action against the petitioner under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The said letter no. 764 dated 29.03.2025 has been brought on record by way of Annexure-9 to the writ application. Last paragraph of Annexure-9 is quoted hereinbelow for needful:-

¶22

xzke iapk;r & flVukckn nf{k.kh ds eqf[k;k jchuk [kkrqu ds }kjk vius d`R;ksa ,oa vius drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu esa vl{ke rFkk mlesa fufgr “kfDr;ksa dk nq:i;ksx fd;k x;k gSA

¶23

vr,o funs”k fn;k tkrk gS fd xzke iapk;r& flVukckn nf{k.kh ds eqf[k;k jchuk [kkrqu ds }kjk xzke iapk;r& flVukckn nf{k.kh ds ;kstuk ds fdz;kUo;u esa cjrh x;h vfu;ferrk ds fy, eqf[k;k inls gVk;s tkus ds lanHkZ esa fcgkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e 2006 dh df.Mdk&18 ds mi df.Mdk&¼5½ ds rgr dkjZokbZ gsrq vkjksi&i= xfBr dj fnukad & 15@4@2025 rd v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; esa fu;ekuqlkj vxzsrj dkjZokbZ gsrq Hkstuk lqfuf”pr djsaA

¶24

vuqyXud&;Fkkof.kZr

¶25

4. On a pin-point query made to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any action has been initiated against him in light of the aforesaid communication of the District Magistrate, Saharsa? Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date, no action has been initiated against him.

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.8602 of 2025(2) dt.11-07-2025 3/3

¶27

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State therefore submits that this writ application is pre-mature because no action has been initiated or taken against the petitioner till date and hence, the petitioner has rushed to the Court without there being any order passed against him.

¶28

6. Having heard both the parties, this Court is of the view that the letter no. 764 dated 29.03.2025 only proposes or recommends an action to be initiated against the petitioner but till date, no action has been initiated and, therefore, no right accrues to the petitioner to maintain this writ application at this stage because there does not exist any order passed against him.

¶29

7. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ application filed by the petitioner is pre-mature and hence, it is dismissed as non-maintainable.

¶30

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

¶31

kiran/-

¶32

Ravina Khatun v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravina Khatun v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjay Madhu Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Prasad Vs Krishna Singh and Ors.

Braj Nandan Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ramswarup Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Bhimsen Singh Vs The State of Bihar