Dismissed¶36

Jai Bajrang Bali Construction v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Apr 2026C. REV./32/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court Civil Review No.32 of 2024 arising from Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19449 of 2021 (Jai Bajrang Bali Construction v. State of Bihar through Rural Works Department); review of order dated 14.07.2022 disposing writ petition on mutually agreeable terms including quashing of Engineer-in-Chief's order dated 20.09.2021; grounds: no error apparent on face of record; review jurisdiction cannot be used as appellate jurisdiction; review application dismissed; decided 07-04-2026 by Sudhir Singh, J. with Shailendra Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the materials on record, no case is made out warranting exercise of the power to review, and no error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated so as to justify interference. ¶35

Jai Bajrang Bali Construction Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVIEW No.32 of 2024

¶2

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19449 of 2021

¶4

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

¶5

Jai Bajrang Bali Construction through its proprietor, Shachidanand Tiwari, male, aged about 63 years, son of Kedar Tiwari, resident of village - Palaundha, Police Station - Chenari, District - Bhabua, Kaimur.

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar through Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna, Bihar- 800001.

¶9

The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna, Bihar - 800001.

¶10

The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna, Bihar - 800001.

¶11

The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna, Bihar - 800001.

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Forbesganj.

¶13

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶14

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

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Government Pleader 5 ======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶18

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

¶19

5 07-04-2026 Heard the parties.

¶20

The present petition has been preferred by the

¶21

petitioner seeking review of the order/judgment dated 14.07.2022, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19449 of 2021, which was disposed of with the following observations:

¶22

Patna High Court C. REV. No.32 of 2024(5) dt.07-04-2026 2/3

¶23

“As such, we dispose of the present petition on the following mutually agreeable terms:-

¶24

(a) Impugned order dated 20.09.2021, passed by Respondent No. 4, namely the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna (Annexure-3) is quashed and set aside;

¶25

(b) Petitioner shall make himself available in the office of respondent no. 4, namely, the Engineerin-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna on 1st of August, 2022 at 10:30 A.M., when the notice to show cause, be it the old one or afresh, be supplied to the petitioner;

¶26

(c) Petitioner undertakes to fully cooperate and not take any unnecessary adjournment;

¶27

(d) Petitioner shall respond within a period of two weeks;

¶28

(e) Fresh order, if so required and desired, be passed within a period of four weeks thereafter;

¶29

(f) Copy of the order, assigning reason, shall be supplied to the petitioner;

¶30

(g) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order in accordance with law;

¶31

(h) Pending such consideration, it shall be open for the petitioner to participate in the works of the department.

¶32

Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

¶33

Upon perusal of the materials available on record,

¶34

Patna High Court C. REV. No.32 of 2024(5) dt.07-04-2026 3/3

¶35

we are of the considered view that no case is made out warranting exercise of the power to review. No error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated so as to justify interference. It is well settled that the power of review cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction.

¶36