Disposed¶23

Hari Shankar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Feb 2026MJC/1865/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Harish Kumar, J, 06-02-2026; MJC No.1865 of 2025 in C.W.J.C. No.10915 of 2015; restoration application; dismissal for default / non-appearance of counsel; order dated 09.09.2016; delay of over nine years; dismissal never communicated to petitioner; liberty to file fresh writ petition; interregnum developments; opposite parties: State of Bihar, District Collector Gopalganj, BDO Katteya; advocates: Ramanuj Tiwary (petitioner), Prabhat Kumar AC to GA-11 (State).

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition for the remaining grievances, which have not been redressed till date; the restoration application itself stands closed. ¶23

Hari Shankar Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1865 of 2025

¶2

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10915 of 2015

¶4

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

¶5

Hari Shankar Singh S/o Late Raj Kishor Singh resident of village- Asani, Post- Asani, P.S.- Asani, District- Siwan.

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar.

¶9

The District Collector, Gopalganj.

¶10

The Block Development Officer, (Katteya), Gopalganj.

¶11

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶12

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

¶13

Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to GA- 11 ======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶16

3 06-02-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the parties.

¶17

The present application has been filed seeking restoration of C.W.J.C. No.10915 of 2015, which stood dismissed for default on account of non-appearance of the learned Advocate for the petitioner vide order dated 09.09.2016.

¶18

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that since at no point of time the fact regarding dismissal of the writ petition has been communicated and, as such, delay has occurred.

¶19

Learned Advocate for the State submits that the writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No.10915 of 2015, came to be dismissed in the year 2016 and now more than nine years have

¶20

Patna High Court MJC No.1865 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026 2/2

¶21

been lapsed and, as such, the petitioner should file a fresh writ petition bringing on record all the facts and development, which has taken place during the interregnum period.

¶22

This Court finds substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the State.

¶23

Accordingly, the present restoration application stands closed with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition for the remaining grievances, which have not been redressed till date.

¶24

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶25

uday/-

¶26

Hari Shankar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Shankar Singh 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lok Prakash Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Prof. Mahinder Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Nitu Kumari Vs Purnea University

Ajay Kumar Thakur Vs The State of Bihar through Mr. Amrit Lal Meena, the Chief Secretary

Sukhraj Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Alka Kumari Vs Amit Kumar Nirala