Shrawan Kumar @ Shrawan Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6886 of 2022 ====================================================== Shrawan Kumar @ Shrawan Kumar Yadav son of Kailash Yadav resident of Village- Gagari, P.S.- Sekhpura (O.P. Sirari), District- Sheikhpura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Bihar Human Rights Commission through its Secretary, 9 Baily Road, Patna- 800015 3.

Director General of Police, Bihar.

4.

District Magistrate, Shekhpura 5.

Superintendent of Police Shekhpura 6.

Circle Officer, Chewara, District- Shekhpura 7.

Circle Officer Shekhpura 8.

Officer-in- Charge, Sekhpura P.S., O.P. Sirari, District- Shekhpura 9.

Pawan Kumar, S.I. Incharge, Out Post, Sirari of Shekhpura P.S., Care of S.P. Shekhpura.

10.

Om Prakash Yadav, S.I. Incharge, Out Post, Sirari of Shekhpura P.S., Care of S.P. Shekhpura.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Manish Kumar (Gp4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 12-12-2023

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s):- "1. That this writ application is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the illegal arbitrary cryptic and order dated in complete order dated 3.9.2021 contained in Annexure passed by Sri Ujjawal Kumar Dubey a Member of the Bihar Human Rights Commission in Human Rights Complaint No. 2834 of 2018 filed by the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.6886 of 2022(2) dt.12-12-2023 2/2 because the said order is not only illegal, arbitrary, cryptic and incomplete but the same is also without jurisdiction not in tune with the prayer made to consider his grievances mentioned in his complaint but the Learned Member did not even touch them and gave any finding about them and did not utter a single word about those grievances and in this way the Learned Member failed in his duty to apply his Judicial mind in considering all the grievances of the petitioner and his family members in respect of passing order violation of their human rights."

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law, for redressal of his aforesaid grievances. Liberty so sought is granted.

3. The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Saurav/- U