Kuldeep Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15791 of 2024 ====================================================== 1.

Kuldeep Yadav son of Bhuneshwar Yadav Resident of village- Bailyamhara, P.S.and District- Banka 2.

Pawan Kumar Pappu son of Late Takeshwar Yadav Resident of villageBailyamhara, P.S.and District- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate, Banka, 3.

The Panchayat Raj Padadhikari, Banka, 4.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Banka, 5.

The Circle Officer, Banka, Block and District- Banka. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Mahendra Prasad Verma, AC to SC-20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-02-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AC to SC-20.

2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, at the outset, submits that the basic principles for issuing the writ of Mandamus is demand and refusal and from perusal of pleadings made in the writ application, it would manifest that the petitioners have rushed to this Court without raising their grievance before the authority competent with respect to lis involved in the present writ application, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that though the petitioners had not filed any representation before

Patna High Court CWJC No.15791 of 2024(3) dt.27-02-2025 2/2 the authority competent, but they had met the authority. 3.

The said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is vehemently rebutted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that what kind of submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court. 4.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ application.

5.

Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. 6.

However, the dismissal of writ application would not preclude the petitioners from availing their remedy, in accordance with law, before the authority competent. (Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U