Santosh Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11893 of 2024 ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Mishra, Son of Surendranath Mishra, R/o- R.N. Dutta Road, Farbesganj, P.S.- Farbesganj, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Director, Municipal Administration, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5.

The Under Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bibhuti Narayan, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Vikas Kumar, AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 14-08-2024 The writ petition is filed by a person who claims to be a social worker to quash the orders of transfer of the officers of the Urban Local Bodies, alleged to be in complete violation of Government instructions.

2. The writ petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation; when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again cautioned such misconceived writ petitions styled as Public Interest Litigation's interfering with the service of persons in Government employment.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11893 of 2024(2) dt.14-08-2024 2/2

3. Transfer is an incidence of service, and if anybody is aggrieved, they have a right to move this Court challenging their individual transfers.

4. Further, it is to be noticed that none of the persons who have been transferred are impleaded in the writ petition. We find the writ petition to be a clear abuse of process of Court.

5. On our expressing our mind, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. We allow it, only after cautioning the petitioner from initiating similar petitions in future, which would be dealt with seriously by this Court.

6. The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Partha Sarthy, J) P.K.P./- U