Sumitra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8433 of 2024 ====================================================== 1.

Sumitra Singh Wife of Late Ashok Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Maa Durga Nagar, Chakshkra, Post- Chandralay, Police Station- Sadar Hajipur, District- Vaishali, State- Bihar, Pin- 844102. 2.

Samit Chauhan, Son of Late Ashok Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Maa Durga Nagar, Chakshkra, Post- Chandralay, Police Station- Sadar Hajipur, District- Vaishali, State- Bihar, Pin- 844102. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Patna, Bihar.

2.

The Under Secretary, Rural Works Department, Patna, Bihar. 3.

The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Patna, Bihar. 4.

The Superintendent Engineer, Rural Works Department, Patna, Bihar. 5.

The Chief Engineer- 4, Rural Works Department, Patna, Bihar. 6.

The Executive Engineer, Regional Laboratory, Rural Works Department, Bakarganj, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga, Pin- 846002. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vishal Vikram Rana, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Standing Counsel (7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the point of objection contained in Serial No.32 about maintainability of the petition submits that in paragraph-76, it has already been mentioned that vide order passed in CWJC No.15570 of 2021, the liberty was granted to the petitioner to file representation. Thereafter, he filed representation but the department did not

Patna High Court CWJC No.8433 of 2024(2) dt.05-02-2026 2/2 take any action on their representation.

3. It transpires that the said order sheet has not been annexed in the petition nor representation has been annexed nor any development with regard to the subsequent action has been intimated, but if the pleading has been accepted that the department did not take any action on the representation of the petitioner even after order passed in CWJC No.15570 of 2021 filing fresh writ is not the remedy; rather MJC is the remedy.

4. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that the Office has correctly pointed out on the point of maintainability. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U