Patna High Court
Dhananjay MadhuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The writ application is dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, perversity, or violation of statutory duty.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ under Article 226 seeking a direction to review orders of the Bihar Public Grievance Redressal authorities that had ordered an FIR against him, his wife and others despite allegations of financial irregularities in Gram Panchayat development works. The petitioner claimed the authorities ignored inquiry findings of embezzlement and acted arbitrarily, while the state argued the matter involved disputed factual issues. The court noted that Article 226 is an extraordinary remedy and can be invoked only for violation of statutory duty. It found that the inquiry had already implicated the petitioner’s wife and that the writ was filed to obstruct police investigation, with no demonstration of jurisdictional error or illegality. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has established a violation of statutory duty by the grievance redressal authorities justifying interference under Article 226.
- Whether the order directing registration of an FIR against the petitioner and others is arbitrary, mala fide, and liable to be set aside.
- Whether the court can intervene in factual disputes concerning the execution of development works and alleged financial irregularities.
Subjects
- Article 226
- Writ jurisdiction
- Public grievance redressal
- Development works irregularities
- Embezzlement
- Political motive
- Jurisdictional error
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1286 of 2026
======================================================
Dhananjay Madhu Son of Bhagwan Singh, Resident of Village- Shekhpura,
P.O.- Nandlalbad, P.S.- Gaurichak, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Second Appellant Authority-cum-Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The First Appellant Authority -cum- the Divisional Commissioner, Patna
Division, Patna.
4. The Second Appellant Authority -cum- District Magistrate, Patna.
5. The First Appellant Authority -cum- Additional Collector, Patna.
6. The District Public Grievances Redressal Officer, Patna.
7. The Sub Divisional Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Masaurdhi, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sushant Pratap Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP 7
Ms. Manisha Singh, AC to GP 7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 02-02-2026 1. The present writ application has been filed for a direction
upon the respondent authorities to review the orders
passed by the Public Grievance Redressal Officer, the
First Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate
Authority in Complaint Nos. 428110110052307600 and
428110108012407946, which were filed under the
provisions of the Bihar Public Grievance Redressal Act,
2015.
2. The facts giving rise to the present writ application is that
Patna High Court CWJC No.1286 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
2/4
the petitioner had filed complaints under the Bihar Public
Grievance Redressal Act, 2015 (in short, ‘the 2015 Act’),
alleging irregularities in the execution of development
works in Gram Panchayat Baranwa, Block – Punpun. The
Panchayat authorities, including the Mukhiya, Technical
Assistant and Panchayat Secretary, had committed
irregularities while executing the works funded under the
Fifth and Sixth Finance Commission guidelines. The
petitioner has specifically alleged overlapping execution
of PCC work over previously completed work and
wrongful expenditure of public money. Based on such
allegations, the petitioner sought investigation by lodging
the First Information Report as well as initiation of
departmental proceedings against the erring officials.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant
to the complaints filed by the petitioner, certain inquiries
were conducted on the directions of the appellate
authorities. The inquiry reports disclosed serious financial
irregularities and embezzlement of public funds. Despite
such findings, the respondent authorities have not taken
any action against the erring officials.
4. Learned Counsel further submits that instead of taking
Patna High Court CWJC No.1286 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
3/4
action against erring officials, the authorities have passed
an order directing registration of First Information Report
against the petitioner, his wife and others, which is
arbitrary and mala fide. The petitioner has submitted a
representation before the Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department on 18.09.2025 for reviewing the order passed
by the authority, but the same has not been considered by
the authorities.
5. On the other hand learned Counsel for the state submits
that that the present writ application has been filed due to
political reason inasmuch as the writ application involves
disputed questions of fact, particularly with regard to the
actual execution of development works, alleged
overlapping of PCC roads, quantum of financial
expenditure etc.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the material available on records.
7. It is well settled principle that the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution being special and
extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or
lightly on mere asking by the litigant. The remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available
Patna High Court CWJC No.1286 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
4/4
except where violation of some statutory duty on the part
of statutory authority is alleged.
8. In the present case, this Court finds that in the enquiry
conducted by the authorities, the involvement of ex-
Mukhiya, i.e. wife of the petitioner, was detected in
defalcation of public fund, for which a direction has been
issued for lodging First Information Report against the
petitioner, his wife and five others. The present writ
application is not banafide and has been filed for
obstructing proper investigation by the police.
9. Further, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate
any jurisdictional error, perversity, illegality or violation
of statutory provisions in the orders passed by the
authorities warranting interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed, being
devoid of any merit.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √
Checking your session…