Baby Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16116 of 2025 ====================================================== Baby Devi W/o Late Sudhir Singh Resident of Madhurapur Beechla Tola, Ward no.- 28, Nagar Parishad Teghra, P.S. and Subdivision- Teghra, DistrictBegusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Begusarai. 2.
The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai.
3.
The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Teghra.
4.
The Officer-in-Charge, Teghra Police Station. 5.
Vineet Singh, S/o Triloki Singh Resident of Madhurapur Beechla Tola, Ward No.- 28, Nagar Parishad Teghra, District- Begusarai, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shaishav Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Standing Counsel (24) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 04-11-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s:
(i) for issuance of an appropriate direction, order, or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 16-12-2024 as contained in Annexure P2 of this writ application within specific period by which it was requested from them to take action
2/4 against the respondent no. 5 and others who have illegally and forcibly captured and blocked the passage of the house and plot of the petitioner situated in Mauza Madhurapur, Jamabandi No. 67. Khata No.
21, Khesra No. 43, measuring 498.67 decimal but no action has been taken till date and she is on the mercy of others;
(ii) for any other relief / relief's to which the petitioner may be found entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite a partition that took place between the family members, the respondent no.5 has disturbed the movement of other agnates. He has already submitted petition before the respondent no.3, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teghra, Begusarai but no action has been taken.
4. Learned State counsel submits that if not taken, it shall be taken to its logical conclusion after putting all the necessary parties on notice.
5. It is unfortunate that on 17.12.2024, a petition was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teghra,
3/4 Begusarai. The receipt is there as reflect from Annexure-2. Failure to act in time can result into conversion of a civil dispute in a criminal case and in that background, it is the duty of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teghra who has been given the job to ensure that such cases are taken up, noticed and after hearing the parties to take the same to its logical conclusion. As he/she has failed to act, this writ petition.
6. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to file fresh petition in next two weeks and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teghra is duty bound to immediately take note of the said petition and after putting everyone/all concerned parties on notice/hearing them, is further duty bound to take the same to its logical conclusion.
7. This Court would also like the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teghra to ensure that all such petitions which is/are pending in his/her office by the different litigants and which has/have not seen the light of the day as that of the petitioner is/are taken up and after noticing the parties, to take the same to its logical conclusion.
8. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Collector, Begusarai to take note of the fact that the petition filed on 17.12.2024 was not taken to its logical conclusion despite
4/4 passage of 11 months.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U