Taranath Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16855 of 2024 ====================================================== Taranath Prasad Son of Sahdeo Prasad Resident of Village Jamuara Kala, P.S. Bankeybazar, District-Gaya at Present the President of Kishan Mazdoor Sangrash Samiti, Bankey Bazar District-Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary-Cum Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.

The District Magistrate-Cum-District Officer, Gaya. 6.

The District Mining Officer, Gaya.

7.

The District Transport Officer, Gaya.

8.

The Sub Division Officer, Sherghati, Gaya.

9.

The Block Development Officer, Bankey Bazar, District-Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md. Javed Jafar Khan, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13 For the Mines :

Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2025 Heard Mr. Md. Javed Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Naresh Dikshit, learned counsel for the Mines Department.

2. It appears that the petitioner seeks Mandamus upon respondents and without approaching the respondents, the petitioner has directly approached the Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It also appears from the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16855 of 2024(3) dt.25-02-2025 2/2 writ petition that the petitioner approached the authority concerned for the grievances as raised in the present writ petition and he has annexed one representation which suggest that some of the other persons have approached the authority concerned.

3. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference of this Court in the present writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U