Tanuja Kumari v. The State Of Bihar Through Sri. Amrit Pratyay,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3313 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9745 of 2025 ====================================================== Tanuja Kumari Wife of Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-Vishnupur, P.O-Ranipur, P.S-Islampur, District-Nalanda at Biharsharif, at present Chariman of Zila Parishad, Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through Sri. Amrit Pratyay, Son of not known to the petitioner, Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.
Manoj Kumar Son of not known to the petitioner, The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.
Kundan Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner, The District Magistrate, Nalanda 4.
Dr. Chandrashekhar Singh, Son of not known to the petitioner, The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
5.
Shri. Prashanth Kumar CH, Son of not known to the petitioner. The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6.
Sri. Khandekar Shrikant Kundalik, Son of not known to the petitioner, Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, DistrictNalanda at Biharsharif. 7.
Tarun Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner. The Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District-Nalanda ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dinu Kumar, Adv Mr. Vardhan Mangalam, Adv Ms. Ritika Rani, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Additional Advocate General 13 For Executive Officer, Zila Parishad :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Executive Officer, Zila Parishad.
2. This application has been filed for punishing the opposite parties for willfully and deliberately violating the order dated 25.06.2025 passed in CWJC No. 9745 of 2025 by which the petitioner was directed to file representation within one
2/7 week from the date of the order before the District Magistrate, Nalanda and on receipt of the representation, the District Magistrate, Nalanda was directed to dispose of the said representation within a further period of four weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order passed by the writ court, the petitioner had filed a representation on 30.06.2025 which has been brought on record by way of Annexure P/2. He further submits that despite filing of the representation within time stipulated by the writ Court, the said representation was not disposed of by the District Magistrate, Nalanda within the time stipulated by the writ Court and neither any reasons have been assigned while disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner.
4. By order dated 09.01.2026, this Court had directed the District Magistrate, Nalanda to file show cause within four weeks making its position clear as to whether the order passed by the writ Court has been complied with or not and if not then why?
5. In compliance of the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by this court earlier, a show cause has been filed by the State
3/7 and in paragraph 11, it has been stated as follows: "11. That the statements made in para-12 to 53 of the M.J.C. petition related to the matter of record as well as part of the issues raised by the petitioner in representation dated 30.06.2025, made by him in pursuance to the order dated 25.06.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
9745/2025. In this regard it is respectfully stated and submitted that in the light of the said representation, the O.P No. 06 was asked to submit an enquiry report with his opinion for the purpose of compliance of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Court vide letter No. 3088, dated 17.07.2025 issued by the answering O.P.
In pursuance to the said direction the point wise and allegation wise report was submitted by the O.P. No. 6 vide letter no. 574, dated 11.08.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared on being noticed before the answering O.P on 10.01.2026 and participated in hearing on her representation dated 30.06.2025.
After hearing the parties and perusing the materials available on the record including the enquiry report of the O.P. No. 06, it was held by the O.P. No. 03 that main allegation of the petitioner is that
4/7 the work of the District Board is not being conducted in accordance with departmental guidelines, proceeding of the meeting of District Board not prepared within the prescribed time frame. It is also alleged that the proceedings of the meetings used to be submitted by omitting and tempering the decision taken in the meeting and not making file/ document available for inspection before the meeting. The employees of the District Board including the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Head Assistant, Deputed Accountant, Md. Tausif are not discharging their duties properly, not calling the meeting even after being given written request, not complying with the report/reply given by the petitioner, not taking action even after irregularity detected.
5/7 allocation received for the schemes, not complying the decision taken in the meeting on time. It is stated in the report of the O.P. No. 06 regarding the aforesaid facts that most of the letters issued by the petitioner have been complied with. Due to the engagement of the O. P. No. 06 in large scale National and International Sports events i.e the Men's Asia Cups Hockey, 2025, Khelo India Youth Games organized in the District of Nalanda and maintaining law and order at the event of Hon'ble Chief Minister visit and preparations for the Bihar Legislative Assembly Election, 2025, meeting were not held on time on several occasions. Furthermore, letters addressed to the other allegations have also been complied with.
In such circumstances the petitioner's allegation that action has not been taken on her letters appears to be baseless and devoid of truth. Therefore, in the above discussed facts and circumstances the representation dated 30.06.2025 filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide order contained in memo no. 463, dated 10.02.2026 by the O.P. No. 03 with following directions:- i. The O.P. No.
6/7 establishing mutual co-ordination and deciding the Agenda before the meeting.
ii. The O.P. No. 6 was directed to ensure regular maintenance of the cash register by qualified and account pass employee.
iii. The O.P. No. 06 was directed to take appropriate action against the erring officials, after making enquiry by an enquiry team in the matter related to excess withdrawal of the amount of the scheme of construction of Yatri Shed of the estimated amount Rs. 4,67,700/- at village Dhanuki under the financial Year, 2021-22 in Block- Sarmera and digging of Paine of the estimated amount Rs. 1,66,000/-.
iv. The O.P. No. 06 is directed to get the matter related to excess withdrawal of the amount of scheme no. 124/2022-23 and 125/2022-23, under 15th finance commission items in block- Tharthari enquired by an enquiry team and if the allegations are found to be true, the earring officials should be identified and action be taken against them as per rule."
7/7
6. From the reading of the above quoted statement, it is evident that the representation filed by the petitioner has been disposed of vide order contained in Memo No. 463 dated 10.02.2026. Learned counsel appearing for the State, therefore, submits that the order of the writ Court has been complied with and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order then he always has the recourse of challenging the same in writ jurisdiction.
7. Taking note of the fact that the representation filed by the petitioner dated 30.06.2025 has been disposed of vide order contained in Memo No. 463 dated 10.02.2026 passed by the opposite party no. 3, nothing remains in this application to be pursued further as the order of the writ Court has been complied with.
8. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order contained in Memo No. 463 dated 10.02.2026 passed by opposite party no. 3, if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the same. (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) kiran/- U