Dismissed¶37

Sikandar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Jun 2026CWJC/5696/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bridge collapse Ghoghari River Gopalganj; writ petition dismissed for non-exhaustion of alternative remedies; prayers for SIT/CBI investigation, vigilance inquiry, F.I.R. against Engineers and Contractor, blacklisting of contractor, third-party technical audit of bridges built in last five years; sanctioned cost Rs. 2.89 crores; slab collapsed during casting on 28.02.2026; Patna High Court CWJC 5696 of 2026, decision dated 19-06-2026; oral judgment per Chief Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai with Justice Soni Shrivastava on the bench.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner did not apprise the Court of any steps taken before the concerned relevant authorities, including whether an F.I.R. was lodged or whether State Authorities acted against the alleged erring contractor. ¶35

Sikandar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5696 of 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Sikandar S/o Kamta Prasad Sharma, R/o- Village- Bakaur, P.O. - Paithana, P.S. - Islampur, Dist.- Nalanda A/P residing at 7MF, 5/28, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Thana- Agamkuan, Post- Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Dist. - Patna, 800026.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

¶8

The Chief Secretary, Govt.of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department/Rural Works Department, District- Gopalganj, Bihar.

¶10

The Engineer-in-Chief, Concerned Department, Road Construction Department/ Rural Works, District- Gopalganj, Bihar.

¶11

¶12

The District Magistrate, Gopalganj, Bihar.

¶13

The Executive Engineer, Concerned Division, Gopalganj, Concerned Road Construction Department, Rural Works, District- Gopalganj, Bihar.

¶14

The Concerned Contractor Company through its Proprietor/Director, Ghoghari River, District- Gopalganj.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, AG : Mr. Rahul Kumar, JC to AG : Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Advocate

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶19

Date : 19-06-2026

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶21

counsel for the respondents.

¶22

2. The instant writ petition pertains to the collapse of a bridge over Ghoghari River.

¶23

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a bridge of approximately 29 meters was

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.5696 of 2026 dt.19-06-2026 2/3

¶25

constructed over Ghoghari River of which the sanctioned cost was approximately Rupees 2.89 crores. On 28.02.2026, during the casting of the second slab a loud explosion occurred and the slab collapsed of which a major portion of the structure fell into the river. The prayer put forth inter alia in the petition

¶26

is to:

¶27

“(i) Direct the constitution of SIT/CBI investigation.

¶28

(ii) Direct vigilance inquiry into financial irregularities.

¶29

(iii) Direct registration of F.I.R. against responsible Engineers and Contractor.

¶30

(iv) Direct blacklisting of the contractor.

¶31

(v) Direct third party technical audit of all bridges constructed in last five years in Gopalganj District.

¶32

(vi) Pass any other order deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

¶33

4. Learned Advocate General submits that the remedy may be exhausted before the concerned authorities.

¶34

5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the averments meticulously, we are of the considered view that the petitioner in the first instance has not apprised this Court of any steps taken before the concerned relevant authorities, whether F.I.R. was lodged or whether the State Authorities have taken action against the alleged erring contractor.

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.5696 of 2026 dt.19-06-2026 3/3

¶36

6. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the petitioner ought to exhaust the remedies available to him under the law before approaching the writ Court.

¶37

7. The writ petition stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

¶38

(Meenakshi Madan Rai, CJ)

¶39

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

¶40

anand/-

¶41

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	22.06.2026
Transmission Date

Sikandar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikandar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju @ Manju Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Vinay Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Sumitra Devi Vs The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary

Mukesh Kumar Vs The High Court of Judicature

Jitendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Muhammad Talib @ Md. Talib Vs The State of Bihar