Pradeep Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11795 of 2015 ====================================================== Pradeep Singh, Son of Goteshwar Singh, resident of Village- Nawabganj, P.S. Manihari, District- Katihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Rural Development (Work), Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, Katihar.

4.

The Deputy Development commissioner, Katihar. 5.

The Regional Development officer, Purnea Region, Purnea. 6.

The Programme Officer, Manihari District Katihar. 7.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Pathak Mr. Raghwanand- GA-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents-State.

The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-6 series to the writ application whereby the Programme Officer, Manihari has been communicated by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar that in compliance of the order dated 17.12.2014, the Junior Engineer, MANREGA has deposited his share of money as directed by the Collector by his order contained in letter No.661/C dated 17.12.2014 whereas the petitioner along with others, till date, have not deposited their

Patna High Court CWJC No.11795 of 2015(3) dt.15-02-2023 2/2 share of money.

Thus, the Programme Officer was directed to get an F.I.R. instituted against the petitioner and others as directed by the District Magistrate, Katihar by his letter dated 11.04.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to meet the query of the Court that the order under challenge is a consequential order as the same has been issued in pursuance of the order passed by the Collector as aforesaid and the said order dated 17.12.2014 is not under challenge.

The learned counsel for the State submits that since petitioner has not challenged the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the Collector, as such, it would be presumed that he has accepted the order and even if the consequential order is quashed, the original order will remain. Hence, issuance of a writ of certiorari would be futile.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State, the writ application is dismissed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U