Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar MandalversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable and is disposed, with the petitioner directed to prefer a memorial before the Director General of Police, Bihar.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Mandal, filed a writ petition seeking to set aside various departmental orders relating to a departmental proceeding dated 19‑08‑2013. During the pendency, he filed interlocutory applications to amend the petition and to quash a later order dated 05‑08‑2014, both of which were allowed. The State argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by filing a memorial before the Director General of Police, Bihar, and thus the writ petition is not maintainable. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 6719 of 2012), the Court held that when an equally efficacious alternative remedy exists, the High Court’s writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Director General of Police on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy exists before the Director General of Police.
- Whether procedural irregularities in a departmental proceeding can be redressed through writ jurisdiction.
- Application of the Supreme Court’s principle that an equally efficacious alternative remedy bars the invocation of writ jurisdiction.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- alternative remedy
- departmental proceeding
- procedural irregularities
- Supreme Court precedent
- civil writ
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18119 of 2013
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Mandal Son of Sri Shiv Narayan Mandal Resident of Village -
Dulari, P.O. Lalpur, P.S. Pipra, District - Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Director General - Cum - Inspector Genneral Of Police, Patna
3. Superintendent Of Police, Lakhisarai
4. Deputy Superintendent Of Police Cum Enquiry Officer, Lakhisarai
5. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Division, Munger.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
: Mr. Shivam, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal, SC-3
: Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
13 17-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition writ petition has been filed
for the following reliefs;
“That this is an application for issuance of an
appropriate writ, order or direction for
setting aside the order as contained in Memo
no.1078 dated 30.4.2013 issued under the
signature of Superintendent of Police,
Lakhisarai alongwith order dated 20.7.2013
issued by the Enquiring Officer i.e. Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai by
which he informed to the petitioner that from
19.8.2013 the departmental proceeding
no.48/13 has been fixed in his office at 11.00
Α.Μ.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.18119 of 2013(13) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
3. During pendency of the writ petition, I.A. No. 7112
of 2014 was filed for amendment in the writ petition whereby
the petitioner had prayed for quashing the order dated
26.03.2014 and the same was allowed vide order dated
27.04.2021.
4. Further, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the
order contained in Memo No. 1813/C dated 05.08.2014 by filing
I.A. No. 03 of 2021, by which the appeal preferred by the
petitioner was rejected. The said I.A. No. 03 of 2021 was
allowed vide order dated 20.08.2025 and the prayer made in the
said Interlocutory Application was made part of the prayers
made in the writ petition.
5. Today the matter was heard for sometime, but
during course of hearing, the learned counsel for the State points
out to the averments made in paragraph no.24 of the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, wherein it has
specifically been mentioned that the petitioner has an alternative
remedy to file Memorial before the Director General of Police,
Bihar, Patna, therefore, the present writ petition is not
maintainable.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there are several procedural irregularities in conducting the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18119 of 2013(13) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
departmental proceeding. However in view of the statement of
the learned counsel for the State and in view of the recent
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil
Appeal No. 6719 of 2012 Rikhab Chand Jain vs Union Of
India & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
paragraph no.15 has held as follows;
15. In our considered opinion, the
appellant having had a remedy before
the High Court in a separate jurisdiction
which was equally efficacious, he
indulged in the (mis) adventure of
invoking its writ jurisdiction which was
rightly not entertained.
7. In view of the above legal proposition, the writ
petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to prefer
Memorial before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna,
which shall be decided by the Director General of Police, Bihar,
Patna on merits.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
U
Checking your session…