Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12884 of 2025 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar S/o- Nageshwar Prasad, R/o- Haibaspur, P.O.- Saidabad, P.S.- Ranitalab, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate, Patna.

4.

The District Development Commissioner, Patna. 5.

The D.P.O. MGNREGA, Patna.

6.

The Director Accounts, D.R.D.A., Patna.

7.

The Programme Officer, Bikram Block, Dist.- Patna. 8.

The Gram Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Haibaspur- Gona, P.S.- Ranitalab, District- Patna.

9.

The Panchayat Rojgar Sewak, Gram Panchayat Haibaspur- Gona, P.S.- Ranitalab, District- Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Onkar Nath For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Government Advocate (09) For the State :

Mr. Navin Vilochan Tiwari, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRIJISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. With the consent of the parties, this writ application is being decided at this stage itself.

3. In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for grant of following relief/s:

"(I).... For commanding the respondent authorities

2/4 particularly the respondent no.7 to ensure the part payment of the admitted dues for a sum of Rs. 2,30,796.82/- (Rs. Two Lakh Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Six and Eighty Two Paise Only) alongwith statutory interest in lieu of supply of the material goods to the construction of MGNREGA Bhawan, at Panchayat Haibaspur-Gauna, within Bikram Block of Patna District to the petitioner. (ii) For commanding the respondent authorities to act as per the provision of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Gurantee Act, (MGNREGA) for the purpose of part payment of the admitted dues. (iii) For grant of any other incidental/consequential relief/reliefs, for which the petitioners can be found entitled for."

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that the petitioner has filed the representations dated 05.06.2024 and 21.03.2025 by (Annexure-P/5), addressing to the respondent no. 7 with respect to his claim as raised in this writ application. Referring to paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents

3/4 have admitted that due to certain problem in e-Shakti portal, the payment of Rs. 73692.79 could not be done in favour of the petitioner. He further contains that in terms of statement made in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, the respondents may be directed to pay the admitted amount to the petitioner within a reasonable time.

5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that though the petitioner has filed the representation vide (Annexure-P/5), which is pending consideration before the authorities, it would be appropriate if the petitioner files a fresh representation annexing all the earlier representations filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.7 i.e. (Programme Officer, Bikram Block, Patna), the same shall be considered and dispose of.

6. In such view of the matter, this court deems it fit and appropriate to dispose of this writ application with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation with respect to his claim, annexing all the earlier representations filed by him, before respondent no.7 i.e (Programme Officer, Bikram Block, Patna) within a period of fifteen days from today, in turn the respondent no.7 shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner within period of three months from the date of filing

4/4 of such representation in accordance with law.

8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case including maintainability of the writ application.

9. With the aforesaid observation/direction and liberty granted, this writ application is disposed of.

10. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also be deemed to have been disposed of. (Girijish Kumar, J) aman/- U