Jay Prakash Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17504 of 2024 ====================================================== Jay Prakash Singh Son of Rampravesh Singh Resident of Village Bagheji, P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

2.

Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

Regional Deputy Director, Education, Saran at Chapra. 4.

District Education Officer, Gopalganj.

5.

District Programme Officer (Estb.) cum Nodal Officer, Vigilance Cell, Gopalganj.

6.

Block Education Officer cum Secretary Block Empoyment Unit, Barauli, Dist- Gopalganj.

7.

Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Bagheji, P.S. Barauli, District Gopalganj.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prabhakar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh, GA-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-01-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned GA-3, Shri. Subhash Prasad Singh.

2.

The learned GA-3, at the outset, submits that the writ application is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus, but then from perusal of pleadings made in the writ application, it would manifest that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without approaching the authority. It is next submitted that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when a demand is made and the same is refused, but

Patna High Court CWJC No.17504 of 2024(2) dt.23-01-2025 2/2 in the instant case, the petitioner, instead of moving before the authorities for redressal of his grievance as raised in the instant writ application, has directly approached this Court. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

4.

In view of the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ application. The writ application is dismissed. 5.

However, dismissal of the instant writ application would not preclude the petitioner from approaching the authority for seeking redressal of his grievance as raised in the instant writ application.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U