Kumar Dhannjay v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10170 of 2025 ====================================================== Kumar Dhannjay Son of Narendra Kumar Mishra, Resident of Village- Ward No. 5 Mishragram, Police Station- Sangrampur, District- East Champaran at Motihari.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Department of Cooperative Society, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna. 3.
The Bihar State Election Authority, Harding Road, Patna though its Secretary.
4.
The Bihar State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Through its Managing Director, Ashok Raj Path, Patna.
5.
The Managing Director, the Bihar State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Ashok Raj Path, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
None.
BSCB :
Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate For the State :
Md. Nadim Seraj, G.P.-5 Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to GP-5 For the Election Comm. :
Mr. Mukesh Thakur, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 17-10-2025 None appears for the petitioner.
2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief :- "1. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to command the respondent authorities to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (as amended by Act 39 of 2020) and to ensure that elections
Patna High Court CWJC No.10170 of 2025(3) dt.17-10-2025 2/2 and constitution of the Board of Management of cooperative banks in Bihar are carried out only in accordance with the amended law and also direct the respondents to amend the bye-laws of the cooperative banks in Bihar for ensuring professional and qualified governance as intended by the legislature."
3. The petitioner has rushed to this Court without approaching the concerned Authority insofar as seeking writ of Mandamus. In the absence of demand before the concerned authority read with vested right, the petitioner has not made out a case so as to grant relief sought in the present petition. Be that as it may, petitioner is at liberty to invoke remedy before the concerned Authority in the form of application/representation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, the concerned Authority is hereby directed to pass suitable order strictly in accordance with law.
4. With the above observation, the present petition stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, CJ) (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) kiran/- U