Prem Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13637 of 2025 ====================================================== Prem Kumar Son of Late Dharmraj Sharma, Resident of Village Pinjour P.S. Parasvigaha, District Jehanabad (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Patna. 3.

The Additional Secretary Minor Water Resources Department, Patna. 4.

The Engineer in Chief, Minor Water Resources Department, Patna. 5.

The Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, Patna. 6.

The District Magistrate, Jehanabad.

7.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Jehanabad. 8.

The Executive Engineer M.I Department, Jehanabad. 9.

The Junior Engineer M.I.Department, Jehanabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhubneshwar Mahto, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 31-10-2025 Following is the relief sought for in the present writ application:- "1. That this application is directed for issuance of writ (P.I.L.) in the nature of mandamus/ any other appropriate writ/order/direction/commanding the respondent to set up an independent inquiry in case of Embezzlement of the public money related with a project of renovation of Kosdihara Bhariwa Ahar and Pyne irrigation system Panchayat Amain and Pandui Block

Patna High Court CWJC No.13637 of 2025(2) dt.31-10-2025 2/2 Jehanabad District Jehanabad.

At the very outset the estimated cost of the project in questino is Rs. 44243699.00 and its Unique code is BHRJBD-163 for the year 2023-24 though the work under the aforesaid project was not completed and same remain incomplete about 50% of work but the payment of entire project has been done to the contractor without completing the entire work and as such the huge public money has been misappropriated."

2. From the perusal of the record except for the averments made in the present writ application there is no supporting document or any other evidence to show that there has been embezzlement on the part of the Respondents.

3. Considering the same, we are of the view that there is no merit in the present writ application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Sudhir Singh, ACJ) (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Sachin/- U