Patna High Court
Mintu PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- CONSIGNED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition was dismissed because the respondents failed to comply with the peremptory order, and no relief was granted.
Summary
Mintu Paswan filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the District Child Labour Rehabilitation Officer to promptly dispose of a pending case filed by him, and also sought orders restraining the Circle Officer and SHO from dispossessing him of bandobast land, as well as action against private respondents alleged to have harassed him by setting huts on fire. The court noted that a peremptory order dated 18‑09‑2025 had given the respondents three weeks to remove a defect, which they failed to comply, leading to the order being dismissed on 09‑10‑2025. After reviewing the file, the judge found no basis to grant the reliefs and dismissed the petition. The dismissal was based on the respondents' non‑compliance with the court’s earlier directive.
Issues considered
- Whether a mandamus can be issued to compel the D.C.L.R. to dispose of the petitioner’s case expeditiously
- Whether the court can restrain the Circle Officer and SHO from dispossessing the petitioner from bandobast land
- Whether the court can direct action against private respondents for alleged harassment
- Effect of non‑compliance with a peremptory court order on the pendency of a writ petition
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- bandobast land
- peremptory order
- dismissal
- harassment
- land dispossession
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14725 of 2025
======================================================
Mintu Paswan Son of Late Laxman Paswan @ Lachhuman Hazari, Resident
of Ward No. 5, Rupahara, P.S.- Sikarganj, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector, Motihari, East Champaran.
3. The D.C.L.R., Sikarahna, Dhaka, East Champaran.
4. The S.D.O., Sikarahna, Dhaka, East Champaran.
5. The Circle Officer, Chiraiya, East Champaran, Motihari.
6. The S.H.O., Sikarganj, East Champaran, Motihari.
7. Shyam Upadhyay, Son of Late Barma Upadhyay, Resident of Village-
Rupahara, P.S.- Shikarganj, District- East Champaran, Motihari.
8. Gyan Upadhyay, Son of Late Barma Upadhyay, Resident of Village-
Rupahara, P.S.- Shikarganj, District- East Champaran, Motihari.
9. Soni Devi, Wife of Shyam Upadhyay, Resident of Village- Rupahara, P.S.-
Shikarganj, District- East Champaran, Motihari.
10. Baby Devi, Wife of Gyan Upadhyay, Resident of Village- Rupahara, P.S.-
Shikarganj, District- East Champaran, Motihari.
11. Sunaina Devi, Wife of Late Barma Upadhyay, Resident of Village-
Rupahara, P.S.- Shikarganj, District- East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Rashmi Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (26)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 19-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“for issuance of an appropriate
writ/order/direction particularly in the nature of
mandamus, directing the respondent No.3 to
Patna High Court CWJC No.14725 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
2/2
expeditiously dispose of the case No.26/2025-
2026 filed by the petitioner on 11.07.2025 with
reasoned and speaking order.
Further be pleased to direct the
respondent No.5 and 6 not to take any initiative
to dispossess the petitioner from the bandobast
land bearing Khata No.12, Khesra
No.2492/4409 and 2820, Mauza- Rupahara,
Thana No.115, Anchal- Chiraiya, East
Champaran.
Further direction may be given to
respondent no.6 to take stern action against the
private respondent No.7 to 11 for harassing the
petitioner and others by setting their huts on fire
and forcefully tried to remove them from the said
land.
Further any other relief(s) as your
Lordships may think fit and proper.”
3. In this case on 18.09.2025, three weeks’ time was
granted to remove the defect.
4. As it was a peremptory order and not complied, it
stood dismissed on 09.10.2025.
5. Perused the file, consigned.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…