Patna High Court
Smt. Pushpa DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that no mandamus would be issued and the petitioner must first appear before the District Programme Officer for verification before any completion certificate can be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Pushpa Devi, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the District Programme Officer (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) to issue a completion certificate for school construction work and to restrain coercive action against her after bail had been granted. She contended that the construction was completed, the advance funds were fully utilized, and a measurement book and engineer's report supported her claim. The State produced an inquiry report alleging that the work was not completed and lodged an FIR against the petitioner and the headmaster. The Court held that the petitioner must appear before the District Programme Officer with all supporting documents for physical verification of the work before any certificate can be issued. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to appear within a week and disposed of the writ petition without granting mandamus.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Programme Officer is bound to issue a completion certificate without physical verification, warranting a writ of mandamus.
- Whether coercive steps, including the requirement of a bail bond, can be taken against the petitioner after bail has been granted.
- Whether the petitioner is liable for alleged financial embezzlement in connection with the school construction scheme.
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- completion certificate
- Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
- school construction
- alleged embezzlement
- bail bond
- district programme officer
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15037 of 2025
======================================================
Smt. Pushpa Devi Wife of Sri Shambhu Yadav R/o Village-Agropatti, P.S.-
Benipatti, District-Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Director, Primary Education, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Madhubani.
3. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.
4. The District Programme Officer Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Madhubani.
5. The Block Education Officer, Benipatti, Madhubani.
6. The S.H.O., Benipatti Police Station Benipatti, Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (26)
Mr. Subodh Kumar, AC to SC-26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 27-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The writ petition has been filed for the following
reliefs :-
(i). For issuance of an appropriate writ in
the nature of mandamus upon the respondent
mainly District Programme Officer (Sarv Shiksha
Abhiyan) Madhubani for giving the certificate of
completion of work.
(ii). For issuance of a appropriate writ in the
nature of mandamus to not take coercive steps
against the petitioner as bail has been granted in
Benipatti P.S. Case No. 13/2016 vide order dated
05.07.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. 19271/2018 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.15037 of 2025(2) dt.27-04-2026
2/4
only due to not providing the completion certificate
petitioner could not furnished the bail bond.
(iii) For issuance of any other relief/reliefs
for which the petitioner is entitled in the eye of law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as
against the allotment made for construction of a school building
under Scheme-3 ACR to the tune of Rs.11,61,600/-, only
Rs.8,62,200 was allotted to the petitioner’s school. It is further
submitted that cheque for disbursement of the amount in favour
of the contractor was signed jointly by the Headmaster and the
petitioner, who is the Secretary of the concerned school.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that under the joint
signature of the Headmaster and the petitioner, who is a
Secretary of the School, namely, Upgraded Middle School,
Agropatti, had signed the cheque for disbursing the amount in
favour of the contractor and it has further been submitted that
the amount which was authorized to the contractor for carrying
out the construction work has already been utilized and the work
stands completed. A necessary measurement book has been duly
prepared by the concerned Junior Engineer, and a report in this
regard has been appended with the writ petition as Annexure
P/2, to support his contention that the work as against the first
advance, which was paid under the scheme in question, and the
amount disbursed under the joint signature of this petitioner, and
Patna High Court CWJC No.15037 of 2025(2) dt.27-04-2026
3/4
the Headmaster, has already been carried out and nothing
remains with this petitioner to contend / allege that there has
been any financial embezzlement on the his part.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
produced an inquiry report dated 11.02.2026, wherein it has
been alleged that the construction work has not been carried out.
On the basis of the said inquiry report, an FIR is stated to have
been lodged against the petitioner and the In-charge
Headmaster.
6. Be that as it may, the petitioner is directed to appear
before the District Programme Officer, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan,
Madhubani, within a period of one week from today, along with
all supporting materials, to satisfy the said authority with regard
to completion of the work against the first advance received by
the school, which was disbursed to the contractor for carrying
out the construction in question.
7. Upon such appearance, the District Programme
Officer shall consider the claim of the petitioner with reference
to the official records as well as the documents produced by the
petitioner. If, upon adjudication, it is found that the work has
been completed, the requisite completion certificate shall be
issued, as per physical verification of the work. However, if it is
Patna High Court CWJC No.15037 of 2025(2) dt.27-04-2026
4/4
found that the work has not been completed, in such event a
reasoned and speaking order shall be passed.
8. The petitioner shall be at liberty to place all
materials in support of his bona fide.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U
Checking your session…