Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The petition is not maintainable as it pertains to a service matter and is therefore dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to set up a committee to investigate alleged illegal appointments in the Saharsa Municipal Corporation and to direct action against the appointees. The respondents argued that the petition is a public interest litigation concerning a service matter, which is not maintainable, citing Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and other precedents. The court examined the scope of PIL, emphasizing that service matters cannot be entertained as PIL and that the petitioner lacked proper locus standi. Relying on established case law, the court held that the petition was frivolous and not maintainable. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, with a warning to the petitioner against filing similar suits in the future.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking investigation of alleged illegal appointments in a municipal corporation is maintainable as a public interest litigation.
- Whether service matters can be entertained under the doctrine of public interest litigation.
- Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the petition.
- Whether exemplary costs should be imposed for frivolous PIL.
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- service matter
- writ of mandamus
- illegal appointments
- municipal corporation
- exemplary costs
- frivolous litigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10973 of 2025
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Kapaleshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Ward No.
25, Batraha, P.S.- Saharsa, District- Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Saharsa.
4. The Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner, Saharsa.
5. The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Saharsa.
6. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Saharsa.
7. Rajan Kumar S/o Megham Baitha, R/o Village- Not Known, P.S.- Not
Known, District- Not Known, at present- Tax Daroga, Municipal
Corporation, Saharsa.
8. Santosh Kumar S/o Dashrath Sah, R/o Village- Not Known, P.S.- Not
Known, District- Not Known, at present- Najir, Municipal Corporation,
Saharsa.
9. Neeraj Kumar Verma S/o Hariskrishna Das, R/o Village- Not Known, P.S.-
Not Known, District- Not Known, at present- Senior Clerk, Municipal
Corporation, Saharsa.
10. Shekhar Kumar Shukla Son of not known, R/o Village- Not Known, P.S.-
Not Known, District- Not Known, at present- Principal Assistant, Municipal
Corporation, Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Samir Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Advocate General
For the Nagar Nigam, Saharsa : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pravashankar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Navneet Dubey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 20-02-2026
The writ petition has been filed by Sanjay Kumar
Singh seeking for following reliefs :-
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
2/15
“i. For issuance of writ/writs,
order/orders in the nature of
mandamus for setting up impartial
three- member committee to conduct a
detailed enquiry with regard to the
illegal appointments being conducted
in the Saharsa Municipal Corporation
(Respondent no.4).
ii. For issuance of writ/writs,
order/orders in the nature of
mandamusdirecting the authorities to
consider the representation filed by
the petitioner and initiate appropriate
action against persons who have
illegally appointed in the Saharsa
Municipal Corporation including the
private Respondents.
iii. For issuance of writ/writs,
order/orders in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondent
authority to take action against the
erring authorities who have appointed
private respondents wrongly.
iv. Any other relief which the applicant
may deemed to be found entitled in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. A counter affidavit, dated 17.09.2025, has been
filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 by one Prabhat Kumar
Jha, Executive Officer, Saharsa Nagar Nigam wherein in
paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8 it has been stated as follows:-
“6. That it is humbly submitted that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v/s Jitendra
Kumar Mishra held that in service
matters Public Interest Litigation
should not be entertained. Therefore,
on this ground alone whether the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
3/15
regular appointments or irregular
appointments are made, may kindly
not be looked into in such Public
Interest Litigation.
7. That the locus of the petitioner is
not clear, as the petitioner has not
disclosed regarding his credentials as
Public spirited person. The petitioner
has merely averred in paragraph no.3
of the writ petition that the petitioner
is socially motivated person who is
interested in social development of the
nation which is not consonance with
the concept of Public Interest
Litigation.
8. That the petitioner has efficacious
remedy of redressal of grievances.
Hence, in the light of above, the
present Public Interest Litigation is fit
to be dismissed.”
3. A supplementary counter affidavit, dated
16.10.2025, has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5
by Prabhat Kumar Jha, Executive Officer, Saharsa Nagar Nigam
wherein in paragraph nos. 7 to 18 it has been stated as follows:-
“7. That the departmental committee
had also enquired the matter and
submitted report dated 19.08.2016 i.e.
annexure -P/2. The Department
communicated the said report vide
letter no.6331 dated 15.09.2016. The
name of respondent no.09 Neeraj
Kumar Verma or his late father Hare
Krishan Lal Das has not been
mentioned in the sand report. The
petitioner has wrongly raised
objection against Hara Krishan Lal
Das after 26 years of death.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
4/15
8. That Santosh Kumar has been
appointed on 11.01.2002 on
compassionate ground on the post of
clerk against sanctioned and vacant
post death of his father. The father of
the petitioner namely Dashrath Sah
was working as clerk against the
sanctioned post. The departmental
committee enquired the matter and
submitted report date 19.08.2016 i.e.
annexure-P/2 in which the name of
Santosh Kumar has been mentioned in
serial no.02. The said committee
mentioned that the special officer,
municipality, Saharsa appointed under
vested power in the light of letter
no.3137 dated 10.11.1993 to him due
to dissolve of body. Santosh Kumar is
working on the said post. Appointment
of Santosh Kumar was found correct,
hence, his name was not mentioned in
the list of terminated person, the
petitioner has wrongly stated that
Santosh Kumar was appointment on
the post of Nazir. There is no provision
for appointment of Nazir directly.
9. That as regards statement made in
paragraph no.1 of the writ petition, it
is humbly stated and submitted that
regarding the petitioner is not entitled
to get any relief as prayed for in the
light facts mentioned in above brief
history and also facts mentioned
below under reply.
10. That as regards statement made in
paragraph no.2 of the writ petition, it
is humbly stated and submitted that
regarding the petitioner questions
raised by the petitioner is not tenable
in the light facts mentioned in above
brief history and also facts mentioned
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
5/15
below under reply.
11. That as regards statement made in
paragraph no.3 of the writ petition, it
is humbly stated and submitted that
regarding the petitioner has submitted
by way of submission.
12. That as regards statement made in
paragraph no.4 of the writ petition, it
is humbly stated and submitted that
regarding the petitioner Statement of
the petitioner regarding filing of
CWJC no.384/2016 by him and
passing of judgment dated 27.09.2016
i.e. annexure-P/1 and also has
narrated its contents though the then
Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad,
Saharsa complied the direction of the
Hon'ble Court by which contractual
appointment of 52 persons was
terminated from 31.12.2016 vide letter
no.2267 dated 28.12.2016 i.e.
annexure-P/3.
13. That as regards statement made in
paragraph no.5 of the writ petition, it
is humbly stated and submitted that
regarding the petitioner regarding
submission of enquiry report dated
15.09.2016 i.e. annexure-P/2 by the
Assistant Director UDHD in which 61
persons found working in Nagar
Parishad, Saharsa hence does not
require comment.
14. That as regards statement made in
paragraph no.6 of the writ petition, it
is humbly stated and submitted that
regarding the petitioner regarding
issuing of letter no.2267 dated
28.12.2016 i.e. annexure-P/3 by the
then Executive Officer. Nagar
Parishad, Saharsa by which
contractual appointment of 52 persons
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
6/15
was terminated from 30.12. 2016,
hence does not required comment.
Fact and annexure-P/4 is matter of
record of concerned office.
15. That as regards statement made in
paragraph no.7 of the writ petition, it
is humbly stated and submitted that
regarding the petitioner regarding
giving reply to his RTI application
about the meeting dated 20.07.2023
i.e. annexure-P/3 series by which
compensate committee recommended
the name of Ranjan Kumar for
appointment though the annexure-P/3
series is matter of record of concerned
office.
16. That as regards statement made in
paragraph no.8 of the writ petition, it
is humbly stated and submitted that
regarding the petitioner regarding
appointment of father namely late
Megham Baitha of respondent no.7
Ranjan Kumar was found to be wrong
in the light of CWIC no. 384/2016 is
not correct because Megham Baitha
was not working on contractual basis.
The departmental committee enquired
the matter and submitted report dated
19.08.2016 i.e. annexure-P/2 in which
the name of Magham Baitha has been
mentioned in serial no.16. The said
committee mentioned that his name
was come from employment exchange
against the vacant post of ward
Jamadar. After conducting written and
oral examination on 30.04.1990 and
on the basis of marks obtained,
appointment of Megham Baitha was
done vide order no.437 dated
20.07.1990 after death of petitioner's
father namely late Megham Baitha,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
7/15
Ranjan Kumar applied for his
compassionate appointment. The
office of Nagar Parishad, Saharsa
sent the application to the district
compassionate committee, Saharsa.
The district compassionate committee,
Saharsa recommended the name of
respondent no.07 Ranjan Kumar vide
memo no. 838 dated 20.07.2022 i.e.
annexure-P/3 at page nos.32 to 35.
After receiving of said
recommendation, the office issued
appointment letter against sanctioned
post to respondent no.07 Ranjan
Kumar and is working vide letter of
Municipal Commissioner, Saharsa
vide Memo no.1742 dated 08.11.2023.
17. That as regards statement made in
paragraph no.9 of the writ petition, it
is humbly stated and submitted that
regarding the petitioner against the
appointment of Santosh Kumar is not
correct Santosh Kumar has been
appointed on 11.01.2002 on
compassionate ground on the post of
clerk against sanctioned and vacant
post after death of his father. The
father of the petitioner namely
Dashrath Sah was working as clerk
against the sanctioned post, the
departmental committee enquired the
matter and submitted report dated
19.08.2016 i.e. annexure-P/2 in which
the name of Santosh Kumar has been
mentioned in serial no.02. The said
committee mentioned that the special
officer, municipality, Saharsa
appointed under vested power in the
light of letter no. 3137 dated
10.11.1993 to him due to dissolve of
body. Santosh Kumar is working on
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
8/15
the said post. The petitioner has
wrongly stated that Santosh Kumar
was appointed on the post of Nazir.
There is no provision for appointment
of Nazir directly.
18. That as regards statement made in
paragraph no.10 of the writ petition, it
is humbly stated and submitted that
regarding the petitioner appointment
of father namely late hare Krishna Lal
das of respondent no.09 Neeraj Kumar
Verma was found to be wrong in the
light of CWJC no. 384/2016 is not
correct because Hare Krishna Lal das
was not working on contractual basis.
Late Hare Krishna Lal das working on
the post of accountant against the
sanctioned post and died on
31.03.1999 during service period. The
departmental committee enquired the
matter and submitted report dated
19.08.2016 i.e. annexure-P/2 in which
the name of Hare Krishna Lal Das or
his Son Neeraj Kumar Verma has not
been mentioned due to not found any
irregularities in appointment of late
Hare Krishna Lal das or of respondent
no.09 Neeraj Kumar Verma. The
petitioner has wrongly raised
objection against Hare Krishna Lal
Das after 26 years of death. After
death of late Hare Krishna Lal Das,
respondent no.09 Neeraj Kumar
Verma has been appointed vide letter
no.234 dated 18.05.1999 on the post
of clerk against sanctioned and vacant
post and since then is working. The
district compassionate committee,
Saharsa also approved the same.”
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
9/15
4 and 5 has argued that the prayer is vague and in view of the
settled position of law as enunciated in the case of R & M Trust
vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group & Ors., reported
in (2005) 3 SCC 91, this type of case cannot be entertained as
Public Interest Litigation as it relates to service matter.
In the said case in paragraph no. 23 and 24 it is stated
as follows:-
“ 23. Next question is whether such
public interest litigation should at all be
entertained and laches thereon. This
sacrosanct jurisdiction of public interest
litigation should be invoked very
sparingly and in favour of vigilant
litigant and not for the persons who
invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of
publicity or for the purpose of serving
their private ends.
24.Public interest litigation is no doubt a
very useful handle for redressing the
grievances of the people but
unfortunately lately it has been abused by
some interested persons and it has
brought a very bad name. Courts should
be very very slow in entertaining
petitions involving public interest: in very
rare cases where the public at large stand
to suffer. This jurisdiction is meant for the
purpose of coming to the rescue of the
downtrodden and not for the purpose of
serving private ends. It has now become
common for unscrupulous people to serve
their private ends and jeopardise the
rights of innocent people so as to wreak
vengeance for their personal ends. This
has become very handy to the developers
and in matters of public contracts. In
order to serve their professional rivalry
they utilise the service of the innocent
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
10/15
people or organisation in filing public
interest litigation. The courts are
sometimes persuaded to issue certain
directions without understanding the
implications and giving a handle in the
hands of the authorities to misuse it.
Therefore, the courts should not exercise
this jurisdiction lightly but should
exercise in very rare and few cases
involving public interest of a large
number of people who cannot afford
litigation and are made to suffer at the
hands of the authorities. The parameters
have already been laid down in a
decision of this Court in the case of Balco
Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of
India [(2002) 2 SCC 333] wherein this
Court has issued guidelines as to what
kind of public interest litigation should be
entertained and all the previous cases
were reviewed by this Court. It was
observed as under: (SCC pp. 376-77,
paras 77-80)
“77. Public interest litigation, or PIL
as it is more commonly known, entered
the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will
not be incorrect to say that it is primarily
the judges who have innovated this type
of litigation as there was a dire need for
it. At that stage, it was intended to
vindicate public interest where
fundamental and other rights of the
people who were poor, ignorant or in
socially or economically disadvantageous
position and were unable to seek legal
redress were required to be espoused. PIL
was not meant to be adversarial in nature
and was to be a cooperative and
collaborative effort of the parties and the
court so as to secure justice for the poor
and the weaker sections of the community
who were not in a position to protect their
own interests. Public interest litigation
was intended to mean nothing more than
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
11/15
what words themselves said viz.
‘litigation in the interest of the public’.
78. While PIL initially was invoked
mostly in cases connected with the relief
to the people and the weaker sections of
the society and in areas where there was
violation of human rights under Article
21, but with the passage of time, petitions
have been entertained in other spheres,
Prof. S.B. Sathe has summarised the
extent of the jurisdiction which has now
been exercised in the following words:
‘PIL may, therefore, be
described as satisfying one or
more of the following parameters.
These are not exclusive but merely
descriptive:
— Where the concerns
underlying a petition are not
individualist but are shared widely
by a large number of people
(bonded labour, undertrial
prisoners, prison inmates).
— Where the affected persons
belong to the disadvantaged
sections of society (women,
children, bonded labour,
unorganised labour etc.).
— Where judicial law-making
is necessary to avoid exploitation
(inter-country adoption, the
education of the children of
prostitutes).
— Where judicial intervention
is necessary for the protection of
the sanctity of democratic
institutions (independence of the
judiciary, existence of grievances
redressal forums).
— Where administrative
decisions related to
developmentCourt and all we need
to do is to recapitulate and re-
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
12/15
emphasise the same.” are harmful
to the environment and jeopardise
people's right to natural resources
such as air or water.’
79. There is, in recent years, a feeling
which is not without any foundation that
public interest litigation is now tending to
become publicity interest litigation or
private interest litigation and has a
tendency to be counterproductive.
80. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for
all wrongs. It was essentially meant to
protect basic human rights of the weak
and the disadvantaged and was a
procedure which was innovated where a
public-spirited person files a petition in
effect on behalf of such persons who on
account of poverty, helplessness or
economic and social disabilities could
not approach the court for relief. There
have been in recent times, increasingly
instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore,
there is a need to re-emphasise the
parameters within which PIL can be
resorted to by a petitioner and
entertained by the court. This aspect has
come up for consideration before this
Court and all we need to do is to
recapitulate and re-emphasise the same.”
5. Learned counsel for the respondents nos. 4 and 5
further submits that the petitioner is in habit of filing such type
of petition earlier also and in one of the case like Civil Writ
Jurisdiction Case No. 15279 of 2024, exemplary cost of rupees
fifteen thousand has been imposed on him. He produced the
copy of the order dated 04.10.2024 passed in the aforesaid
C.W.J.C. No. 15279 of 2024 which is taken on record.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
13/15
6. The law is well settled that Public Interest
Litigation is to address violation of public rights, human rights
and governance. Careful scrutiny is to be made to prevent
frivolous filing and judicial activity is to be balanced with
constitutional separation of powers. Public Interest Litigation is
not a publicity interest litigation, personal interest litigation or
political interest litigation. Core idea of the Public Interest
Litigation is to provide a voice for the voiceless and ensure
violation of the constitutional or legal rights of the marginalized
do not go unaddressed but it requires to work with great care
and circumspection. It is consistently held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that in the service jurisprudence, no public
interest litigation can be entertained. In the case of Ayaaubkhan
Noorkhan Pathan – Vs. -State of Maharashtra and Others
reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
as follows :-
“14. This Court has consistently
cautioned the courts against entertaining
public interest litigation filed by
unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers
do not hesitate to abuse the process of
court. The right of effective access to
justice, which has emerged with the new
social rights regime, must be used to
serve basic human rights, which purport
to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a
workable remedy within the framework of
the judicial system must be provided.
Whenever any public interest is invoked,
the court must examine the case to ensure
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
14/15
that there is in fact, genuine public
interest involved. The court must
maintain strict vigilance to ensure that
there is no abuse of the process of court
and that, “ordinarily meddlesome
bystanders are not granted a visa”. Many
societal pollutants create new problems
of non-redressed grievances, and the
court should make an earnest endeavour
to take up those cases, where the
subjective purpose of the lis justifies the
need for it. (Vide P.S.R. Sadhanantham v.
Arunachalam [(1980) 3 SCC 141 : 1980
SCC (Cri) 649 : AIR 1980 SC 856] ,
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [(2010) 2
SCC 114 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324] ,
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh
Chaufal [(2010) 3 SCC 402 : (2010) 2
SCC (Cri) 81 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 807]
and Amar Singh v. Union of India [(2011)
7 SCC 69 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 560] .)
15. Even as regards the filing of a public
interest litigation, this Court has
consistently held that such a course of
action is not permissible so far as service
matters are concerned. (Vide Duryodhan
Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7
SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802 : AIR
1999 SC 114] , Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware
v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 1 SCC
590 : AIR 2005 SC 540] and Neetu v.
State of Punjab [(2007) 10 SCC 614 :
AIR 2007 SC 758] .)”
7. In view of the well settled position of law and
taking into account the nature of prayer made in this writ
petition and as it relates to service matter, we are of the view
that it is not only a frivolous litigation but not maintainable. We
were contemplating to impose heavy exemplary cost on the
petitioner, however, we expect that the petitioner to be careful
Patna High Court CWJC No.10973 of 2025 dt.20-02-2026
15/15
and shall not indulge in such activities in future.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…