Ranjeet Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3349 of 2023 ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Yamuna Kant Pandey at permanent resident of Village and P.O.- Mandna, P.S. - Sheikhpura, District - Sheikpura, Bihar 811105 at present resident of Seat no. 129, Central Hall, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, P.S. - TIS HAZARI, Town and District - Delhi - 110054. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar Old Secretariat, Patna - 800015.
2.
The Patna High Court, through the Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna, 800001.
3.
The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna, 800001. 4.
The District and Session Judge, Patna.
5.
The District and Session Judge, Bhojpur.
6.
The District and Session Judge, Buxar.
7.
The District and Session Judge, Kaimur.
8.
The District and Session Judge, Rohtas.
9.
The District and Session Judge, Nalanda.
10.
The District and Session Judge, Saran.
11.
The District and Session Judge, Siwan.
12.
The District and Session Judge, Gopalganj.
13.
The District and Session Judge, East Champaran. 14.
The District and Session Judge, West Champaran. 15.
The District and Session Judge, Muzaffarpur.
16.
The District and Session Judge, Sheohar.
17.
The District and Session Judge, Sitamarhi.
18.
The District and Session Judge, Vaishali.
19.
The District and Session Judge, Araria.
20.
The District and Session Judge, Katihar.
21.
The District and Session Judge, Kishanganj.
22.
The District and Session Judge, Purnia.
23.
The District and Session Judge, Banka.
24.
The District and Session Judge, Bhagalpur.
25.
The District and Session Judge, Darbhanga.
26.
The District and Session Judge, Madhubani.
27.
The District and Session Judge, Samastipur.
28.
The District and Session Judge, Madhepura.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3349 of 2023 dt.10-04-2023 2/3 29.
The District and Session Judge, Saharsa.
30.
The District and Session Judge, Supaul.
31.
The District and Session Judge, Arwal.
32.
The District and Session Judge, Aurangabad.
33.
The District and Session Judge, Gaya.
34.
The District and Session Judge, Jehanabad.
35.
The District and Session Judge, Nawada.
36.
The District and Session Judge, Begusarai.
37.
The District and Session Judge, Jamui.
38.
The District and Session Judge, Khagaria.
39.
The District and Session Judge, Munger.
40.
The District and Session Judge, Lakhisarai.
41.
The District and Session Judge, Sheikhpura.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Pandey (In Person) For the Respondent/s :
Mr.P.K. Shahi, Advocate General Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 10-04-2023 The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, claims public interest in so far as the relief sought, to direct the District Courts to comply with the orders passed by this High Court specifying the definite period in which disposal was directed. The petitioner seems to have obtained information from the District & Sessions Judges of various districts of Bihar regarding the numerous orders passed in criminal cases wherein there was a direction for expeditious disposal or disposal within a specified
Patna High Court CWJC No.3349 of 2023 dt.10-04-2023 3/3 time period. This has not been complied with, is the grievance of the petitioner, which he says, is in public interest. Admittedly, the orders for disposal have been obtained by private individuals, either the accused or the de facto complainants who have a remedy if such orders are not complied with; either on the judicial side or on the administrative side when the orders have been issued by various Benches of this Court directing disposal of cases expeditiously or within a specified period. There is absolutely no reason why we should invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially in a Public Interest Litigation, to implement and execute such orders.
We find no reason to entertain the writ petition, which would stand dismissed in limine.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Madhuresh Prasad, J) P.K.P./Anushka AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 13.04.2023 Transmission Date