Patna High Court
Kaushal RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that, due to the limited scope of writ jurisdiction and the presence of factual disputes, it would not entertain the petition and disposed of it without granting relief.
Summary
The petitioner, Kaushal Ray, filed a public interest writ petition seeking a direction to the State and other respondents to provide permanent road connectivity from Tamtam Padaau to Anisabad Jagdeopath Road, alleging that the temporary diversion constructed for a railway under‑pass was inadequate. Respondent No.3, a senior project engineer of the Bihar State Bridge Construction Nigam Ltd., submitted a counter‑affidavit stating that a proper diversion had already been provided and that technical constraints prevented construction of an additional diversion on the eastern side of the under‑pass. The petitioner’s counsel filed a rejoinder, but the Court noted that the writ jurisdiction is not suited for adjudicating factual disputes. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the contested facts and refrained from issuing any further order. The petition was therefore disposed of without relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the State and related agencies are legally obligated to provide permanent road connectivity in place of the temporary diversion pending completion of the railway under‑pass.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the factual dispute over the adequacy of the existing diversion.
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- writ jurisdiction
- road connectivity
- railway under‑pass
- temporary diversion
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19403 of 2025
======================================================
Kaushal Ray S/o Late Subalal Ray, resident of Gram Ufarpura, P.S.- Dhanaut,
District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Bridge Construction Nigam Limited,
Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer Cum Additional Commissioner Cum Special Secretary,
Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
6. The Collector, Patna.
7. The Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif, Patna.
8. The Circle Officer, Danapur, Patna.
9. The Union of India through the Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur,
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv
For the State : Mr. Additional Solicitor General
For the U.O.I. : Mr. Dr. Chandra Shekhar Azad, CGC
For BSBCN Ltd. : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Adv
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
6 09-02-2026 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
Kaushal Ray in the nature of Public Interest Litigation seeking
for the following reliefs:
“For a direction to the
Respondents to give connectivity to Main
Patna High Court CWJC No.19403 of 2025(6) dt.09-02-2026
2/4
Road from (Tamtam Padaau) Anisabad
Jagdeopath Road after constructing
diversion on the North-East of Railway
Under-Pass, which has been temporarily
developed for connectivity of the people for
the period the main Under-Pass is
constructed over Railway Crossing No.33
between Phulwarisharif Railway Station to
Danapur Junction for smooth and easy
connectivity of people at large of the said
locality.”
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.
3, Sanjiv Kumar, Senior Project Engineer, Bihar Rajay Pool
Nirman Nigam Limited, Patna-1 wherein in paragraph nos. 5,6,
8 and 10, it is stated as follows:
“5. That at the outset, it is
submitted that the present writ petition is
totally misconceived as the answering
respondent have already given connectivity
to Main road from (Tamtam Padaau)
Anisabad Jagdeopath Road after
constructing diversion on the North East of
Railway Under Pass which has been
temporarily developed for connectivity of the
people for the period main under Pass.
6. That due to ongoing under pass
work across railway line, proper diversion
Patna High Court CWJC No.19403 of 2025(6) dt.09-02-2026
3/4
has been provided for giving connectivity
one side of Railway Line to other side of
railway People crossing across the Railway
Line through this diversion. Once the under
pass work is completed this under pass will
be used for crossing across the Railway
Line.
8. That the statement made in
Para 2 is misconceived, misleading and
contrary to the facts of the case. Proper
diversion has been provided for giving
connectivity one side of Railway Line to
other side of railway. People crossing across
the Railway Line through this diversion.
Once the under pass work is completed this
under pass will be used for crossing across
the Railway Line and at present there is
inconvenience in crossing the Railway line
through the Diversion constructed for this
purpose. A site sketch is being enclosed for
proper appreciation of the matter.
10. That in reply to the statement
made in Para 5 to 7 of the writ petition, it is
submitted that one diversion has been
provided on the western side of the under
construction Under Pass and movement of
traffic is smooth though this diversion. It is
technically not possible to construct any
diversion on the eastern side of under pass
due to railway line thoughout. Diversion on
Patna High Court CWJC No.19403 of 2025(6) dt.09-02-2026
4/4
western side was possible at the location of
an old bridge/damaged bridge.”
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has
filed the rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit disputing the
stand taken by the respondent no. 3, Sanjiv Kumar but since
limited scope is available in writ jurisdiction, we are not
inclined to enter into this disputed question of fact and after
going through the stand taken by the respondent no. 3, Sanjiv
Kumar, we are not inclined to pass any further order in this writ
petition.
4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed
of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
( Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kiran/-
U
Checking your session…