Mukesh Kumar Pandey Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2026)

Mukesh Kumar Pandey Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ application disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in terms of Section 9 of the Bihar Right to Public Grievance Redressal Act, 2015 within three weeks, the authority to decide the revision within three weeks thereafter; liberty to file an interim relief application within two weeks, to be decided on merits on priority basis preferably within one week; no coercive action by the respondent until the interim application is decided; any limitation question before the competent authority to be considered in light of the petitioner's pursuit of the matter before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ application should be disposed of on withdrawal in favour of the statutory revision remedy under Section 9 of the Bihar Right to Public Grievance Redressal Act, 2015, and with what interim protections and limitation directions for the petitioner.

Court's answer

In view of the fair stand taken by the petitioner's counsel, the writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in terms of Section 9 of the Bihar Right to Public Grievance Redressal Act, 2015 within three weeks, and the authority saddled with the responsibility to decide the revision under Section 9 is to decide it within three weeks thereafter.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is given liberty to file an appropriate application seeking interim relief before the authority mandated under Section 9; if such application is filed within two weeks, the appropriate authority shall decide it purely on its merits on a priority basis, preferably within one week from the date of filing.

Key takeaways

Until the application for interim relief is decided by the authority competent to decide under Section 9 of the Act, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent against the petitioner.ratio¶21
If any question of limitation arises before the competent authority, it shall be considered taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was pursuing the issue before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rana Vikram Singh, J), Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9857 of 2026, decided 07-07-2026: Mukesh Kumar Pandey v. (1) The State of Bihar through the Principal Chief Secretary, Revenue Department; (2) The District Magistrate-cum-the 2nd Appellate Authority, Siwan; (3) The Sub Divisional Public Grievance Redressal Authority, Siwan; (4) The Addl. Collector-cum-the 1st Appellate Authority, Public Grievance Redressal Authority, Siwan; and (5) The Circle Officer, Nautan, Siwan. At the very outset, the petitioner's counsel prayed for withdrawal of the writ application in view of the specific statutory provision of revision contained in Section 9 of the Bihar Right to Public Grievance Redressal Act, 2015, to which counsel for the State had no objection, submitting that the petitioner could have approached the authority under Section 9 prior to coming to Court. The writ application was accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in terms of Section 9 within three weeks, the authority being directed to decide the revision within three weeks thereafter. The petitioner was further permitted to raise his prayer for interim relief before the Section 9 authority: if such an application was filed within two weeks, the authority was to decide it purely on merits on a priority basis, preferably within one week, and until such decision no coercive action was to be taken by the respondent. It was further directed that if any question of limitation arose before the competent authority, it was to be considered taking into account that the petitioner had been pursuing the issue before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9857 of 2026

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

Mukesh Kumar Pandey Son of Hari Shankar Pandey, At present resident of Plot No. E-38, 4th Floor, BLKE, MCD Park, Kirti Nagar, P.S.- West Delhi and Permanent resident of Village- Mathia, P.O- Shahpur, P.S.- Nautan, District- Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Chief Secretary Revenue Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat Patna.

The District Magistrate-cum-the 2nd Appellate Authority, Siwan.

The Sub Divisional Public Grievance Redressal Authority, Siwan.

The Addl. Collector-cum-the 1st Appellate Authority, Public Grievance Redressal Authority, Siwan.

The Circle Officer, Nautan, Siwan.

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (17) ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 07-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

At the very outset, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ application in view of the specific statutory provision of revision as contained in Section 9 of the Bihar Right to Public Grievance Redressal Act, 2015, to which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has no objection. Rather he submits that the petitioner could have approached the authority in terms of Section 9 prior to coming

Patna High Court CWJC No.9857 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026 2/3

to this Court.

In view of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate authority in terms of Section 9 of the aforesaid Act within three weeks henceforth and the authority being saddled with the responsibility to decide the revision in terms of Section 9 of the Act, will decide the same within a period of three weeks thereafter.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be allowed to raise his prayer for an interim relief before the authority as mandated in Section 9 of the Act.

In view of this prayer, the petitioner is given liberty to file an appropriate application seeking an interim relief. If the petitioner files any such application within a period of two weeks henceforth, the appropriate authority shall decide the same purely on the basis of its merit on priority basis, preferably within a period of one week from the date of filing and till such an application for interim relief is decided by the authority competent to decide under Section 9 of the Act, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent.

It goes without saying that if any question of limitation arises before the competent authority, the same shall

Patna High Court CWJC No.9857 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026 3/3

be considered taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was pursuing the issue before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ application stands disposed of.

(Rana Vikram Singh, J)

Rupa/Supratim-

U