Patna High Court
Vishwa Nath PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court declined to issue a writ of mandamus and directed the petitioners to approach the District Magistrate with a fresh representation for consideration of their grievance.
Summary
The petitioners, Vishwa Nath Prasad and Vijay Kumar Prasad, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the District Magistrate and other officials of Motihari to consider their grievance that a drainage was constructed on their raiyati land without a No‑Objection Certificate. The petitioners alleged that despite raising the matter through a representation, the authorities had taken no action to stop the construction. The court examined whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel the public authorities to act on the grievance. The learned Additional Advocate General did not oppose the petition but suggested that the petitioners should approach the District Magistrate afresh with a detailed representation. Accordingly, the court declined to grant mandamus and disposed of the application, granting the petitioners liberty to file a fresh representation before the District Magistrate, who must consider the documents, give a hearing and pass a reasoned order within three months. The order thus directs administrative remedy rather than judicial intervention.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the District Magistrate and other officials to consider the petitioners' grievance regarding unauthorized drainage construction on raiyati land.
- Whether the construction of drainage on raiyati land without a No‑Objection Certificate is illegal and warrants judicial intervention.
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- rai yati land
- drainage construction
- NOC
- administrative law
- district magistrate
- public authority
- grievance redressal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20082 of 2021
======================================================
1. Vishwa Nath Prasad son of Late Kripa Mahto @ Late Kripa Shankar Prasad,
Resident of Kh no. 48/17 Gali 37 F2, B Block, near Balaji Mandir, Kaushik
Enclave Burari North Delhi, Delhi. At present resident of A-38, B-7,
Shalimar Garokh Ext-2 Sahibabad Gaziabad (U.P.).
2. Vijay Kumar Prasad Son of late Kripa Mahto @ Late Kripa Shankar Prasad
Resident of Kh no. 48/17 Gali 37 F2, B Block, near Balaji Mandir, Kaushik
Enclave Burari North Delhi, Delhi. At present resident of A-38, B-7,
Shalimar Garokh Ext-2 Sahibabad Gaziabad (U.P.).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Motihari.
2. The District Magistrate, Motihari.
3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikarhanna, East Champaran.
4. The Circle Officer, Dhaka, East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Usha Kumari Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 23-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the present application for
issuance of a writ of mandamus upon the respondent authorities
to consider his grievances, which have been raised by filing a
representation, one being Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
3. From the contents of the pleadings made in the writ
application, it seems that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact
that a drainage is constructed on his raiyati land without his
NOC and to which he has been objecting to, however, despite
Patna High Court CWJC No.20082 of 2021(4) dt.23-03-2026
2/2
raising his grievances before the respondent authorities, no steps
have been taken to stop such construction.
4. Learned AC to AAG-12 does not oppose the fact
that the writ petition be disposed of with a liberty to the
petitioner to approach the District Magistrate, Motihari, East
Champaran, with a fresh representation raising all his
grievances as raised in the present application, who shall
consider the case of the petitioner after taking into account the
documents produced by him and after giving him an opportunity
of hearing and pass a reasoned order within three months from
the date/production of the present order.
5. The application stands disposed off with the
aforesaid liberty.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U
Checking your session…