Patna High Court

Santosh Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 30 March 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: RAJIV ROY

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as the toilet was lawfully constructed with community consent and the petitioners failed to join necessary parties.

Summary

Santosh Kumar Singh, an ex‑Secretary of the Maharani Durga Jee temple, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to stop the construction of a public toilet on land he claims belongs to a private charitable trust and is used for religious rites. The petition alleges that the Gram Panchayat committee and the Durga Puja Samiti exceeded their authority by approving the toilet, thereby degrading the sanctity of the temple. The State respondents contend that the toilet was built with the consent of the Durga Puja Samiti, under the Swakshta Mission, located about 35 feet from the temple and intended for devotees, especially women. The court examined whether the petitioners had standing, whether the respondents were necessary parties, and whether the construction violated any legal right. Finding that the toilet had already been lawfully constructed, that the petitioners failed to implead the committee members who are the proper parties, and that the construction does not impinge on the temple’s sanctity, the court dismissed the writ petition with costs.

Issues considered

Whether the construction of a public toilet on the temple premises violates the rights of the private charitable trust and the sanctity of religious rites.
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to seek a mandamus restraining the construction.
Whether the State officials and the committee members are necessary or proper parties to be impleaded in the writ petition.
Whether the court can order the removal or alteration of the toilet or direct its maintenance.

Subjects

writ petition
mandamus
temple property
public toilet
religious sanctity
necessary party
joinder of parties
maintenance
community sanitation

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1395 of 2025
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Singh Son of Late Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh @ Chandra
Shekhar Singh, R/o-Village- Chamtha-01, Ward No. 04, Chhotukhut Deeh,
Post- Chamtha, P.S- Bachhwara, District- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police (D.G.P), Bihar, Patna.
4. The Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger.
5. The Inspector General, Munger Division, Munger.
6. The Collector, District- Begusarai.
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Teghra, District- Begusarai.
8. The Block Development Officer, Bachhwara, District- Begusarai.
9. The Circle Officer, Bachhwara, District- Begusarai

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate
: Ms. Karnika, Advocate
: Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Advocate
: Mr. Vaibhaw Kumar Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Subhash Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Government Pleader (04)
: Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER

6 30-03-2026 Heard Mr. Chandra Kant, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned AC to GP-4

representing the State.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the

grant of following relief(s):

“for issuance of an appropriate writ in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1395 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
2/9

nature of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate

writ/writs, order/orders, command/commands

for directing the respondents to stop the

construction of toilets on the land of private

charitable Trust given by the ancestor of the

petitioner bearing Mauza-Chamtha, Thana No.

63, Khata No. 748, Khesra No. 1831 for the

purposes of religious rites and rituals perform.

There is a temple of Maharani Durga Jee

situated at the aforesaid land.”

3. The petitioner claims that the ‘Mukhiya’ of the

Gram Panchayat, Chamtha, Mr. Sanjay Das, Mr. Ashok Paswan,

Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Chamtha-01 with Durga Puja

Samiti Members, Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Singh, Secretary, Mr.

Nagendra Prasad Singh, Sachiv and Mr. Gauri Shankar Singh,

Cashier have decided to construct toilet in the temple premises

having land details as follows:

“Khata No. 748, Khesra No. 1831, under Circle-

Bachwara, district-Begusarai.”

4. The case is that the Committee Members can only

organize Durga Puja and cannot decide on the construction of

the toilet. In this regard, detailed representation was filed but
Patna High Court CWJC No.1395 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
3/9

since the respondents failed to act, the writ petition.

5. The further submission is that he is an ex-Secretary

of the Temple and the new committee members are taking

illegal decisions which include the construction of toilet in the

temple premises degrading its sanctity. The submission is that

however, now the toilet has been constructed, the authorities

have not ensured anything about its maintenance.

6. Learned State counsel on the other hand has taken

this Court to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the

respondent nos. 6 to 9 duly put on affidavit by the Circle

Officer, Bachwara, Begusarai with specific reference of

paragraph nos. 5 to 9 which read as follows:

“5. That so far relief as prayed in Para No.

1 of the writ petition is concerned it is submitted

that the President of Durga Puja Samiti of

Chamtha wrote an application to the Block

Development Officer Bachhawara regarding

construction of public toilet within the campus of

Durga Asthan in Ward No. 3 under Chamtha-1

Panchayat.

6. The Block Development Officer

Bachhawara wrote a letter to the Circle Officer
Patna High Court CWJC No.1395 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
4/9

Bachhawara to make available land for

Community Swakshata Campus in the light of

Letter No. 445 dated 31-07-2024 of the DDC

Begusarai. The Circle Officer Bachhawara vide

Letter No. 2683 dated 18-12-2024 intimated the

Block Development Officer Bachhawara that the

land of Khesra No. 1831 is Gair Majarua Khash

and Jamabandi No. 799 is running in the name

of Maharani Durga Jee Maharani and after

getting no objection certificate from the

Committee of Maharani Durga Jee, Community

Swakshata Campus may be constructed.

7. That in view of the consent of the

Durga Puja Samiti toilet has been constructed

over the land in question for the general people

who came there on several religious functions.

8. That the President Durga Puja

Samiti and several other villagers has submitted

a representation before the District Magistrate

Begusarai and copy of this representation was

also served to the SDO Teghra, the BDO

Bachhawara & the Circle Officer Bachhawara
Patna High Court CWJC No.1395 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
5/9

wherein they have mentioned that the Ex-

Landlord has settled the land measuring an area

4 Bigha 1 Katha in the name of Maharani Jee

and accordingly Jamabandi was created in its

name. Elected member of Durga Puja Samiti is

doing Puja-Path in this Mandir since 1922.

9. That the fact stated above it is clear

that Durga Puja Samiti as Elected by the

Villagers managing the Mandir of Maharani Jee

and accordingly as per their no objection toilets

has been constructed.”

7. He further submits that being an ex-Secretary of

the Committee, the petitioner is only putting spoke on the

wheels of the development of the temple. The submission is that

there was a pending demand of the locals for construction of the

toilet for the benefits of devotees which was presented through

the committee as the women devotees were facing great

difficulty. The committee accordingly made request to the State

respondents which led to the construction of the toilet. It is 35

feet away from the temple and not on its main entrance part

rather on its side which in no way affects its sanctity.

8. The last submission is that though the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.1395 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
6/9

has made allegation against committee members as also the then

Block Development Officer, surprisingly, none of them have

been made party respondents in the present case to defend

himself/themselves. He has specifically taken this Court to the

paragraph no.6 of the writ petition to show that each and every

member of the committee and the officer of the State have been

named in the said paragraph with allegations but the list of

respondents shows that none of them have been made party

respondents. In that background alone, the writ petition is fit to

be dismissed on merit as also due to non-joinder of the

necessary party respondents.

9. In support of his contention, learned State counsel

has taken this Court to the case of Moreshar Yadaorao

Mahajan vs. the Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) thr. Lrs. and

Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1307 with specific

reference to paragraph no. 17 which read as follows:

“17. This Court, in the case of Mumbai

International Airport Private Limited (supra),

has observed thus:

"15. A "necessary party" is a person who

ought to have been joined as a party and in

whose absence no effective decree could be
Patna High Court CWJC No.1395 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
7/9

passed at all by the court. If a "necessary party"

is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be

dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who,

though not a necessary party, is a person whose

presence would enable the court to completely,

effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all

matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not

be a person in favour of or against whom the

decree is to be made. If a person is not found to

be a proper or necessary party, the court has no

jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of

the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to

secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the

suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make

such person a necessary party or a proper party

to the suit for specific performance.”

10. This Court has heard the parties at length and have

also perused the affidavits. The counter affidavit of the State

respondents clearly show that the locals through the committee

represented before the Collector, Begusarai for the construction

of the toilet whereafter under ‘Swakshta Mission’, decision was

taken to construct toilet. The photograph attached to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1395 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
8/9

supplementary counter affidavit clearly show that it is on the

side of the temple and definitely away from it with a road

bifurcating both the structures.

11. As recorded above, the petitioner is an ex-

Secretary of the Temple, instead of appreciating the efforts taken

by the committee for the construction of toilets specially for the

women/children, he is disturbing it. Long pending demand of

the toilet was taken note of the respondents after a proper

committee serving the temple made the request and the affidavit

shows that it has already been constructed.

12. So far as the maintenance part of the toilet is

concerned, as the committee members have not been impleaded

as party respondents in the case, the Court is unable to give any

direction to them. However, the Court expects that now the

toilet has been constructed on the request of the committee, it is

their duty to keep it neat and clean, is regularly maintained and

hygiene should be the top priority as those visiting the temples

are devotees. This Court has seen the photograph and can only

add that if a wall is created three feet away from the toilet

towards the temple side, it will protect the dignity of those using

it and will also vanish the toilet from the temple side.

13. So far as the writ petition is concerned, it is
Patna High Court CWJC No.1395 of 2025(6) dt.30-03-2026
9/9

misconceived filed by disgruntled element (ex-Secretary of the

Committee). Leveling allegations against the committee

members without impleading them as party respondents clearly

show he has invoked the writ jurisdiction of Patna High Court

with ulterior motives.

14. In that background, the writ petition is dismissed

with a cost of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited with the Patna High

Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks

failing which appropriate steps be taken for realization of

amount in accordance with law.

(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…