Patna High Court
Ram Kishun SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The second public interest litigation is not maintainable as the same cause of action was already adjudicated in C.W.J.C. No. 8108 of 2021.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Kishun Sah, filed a public interest litigation seeking multiple writs of certiorari and mandamus to quash inquiry reports and compel fresh investigations into alleged embezzlement under MGNREGA and other state schemes in Tisiauta Gram Panchayat. The State of Bihar argued that the petitioner had previously filed an identical petition (C.W.J.C. No. 8108 of 2021) which was disposed of with directions to approach the Block Development Officer, and that the representation had already been considered and appropriate action taken. The Court examined the earlier order and the subsequent representation, finding that a proper inquiry had been conducted and legal action taken against the erring officials. It held that a second petition on the same cause of action is barred by the principle of res judicata and cannot be entertained. Consequently, the Court disposed of the present writ petition, leaving the petitioner free to pursue any other legal remedies if dissatisfied.
Issues considered
- Whether the present public interest litigation is maintainable in view of the earlier petition filed by the same petitioner on the same cause of action.
- Whether the principle of res judicata bars the filing of a second writ petition seeking the same reliefs.
- Whether the appropriate administrative inquiry and remedial actions have already been completed.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- writ of certiorari
- mandamus
- res judicata
- administrative law
- corruption
- MGNREGA
- Panchayati Raj
- transparency
- accountability
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2863 of 2026
======================================================
Ram Kishun Sah S/o Late Janki Sah, Resident of village Pindauta Khurd, P.O.
and P.S. - Tisiauta, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Principal Secretary Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development, Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
6. Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzzaffarpur.
7. Commissioner, Manrega, Government of Bihar, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.
9. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua, Vaishali at Hajipur.
10. Block Development Officer, Patepur, Vaishali at Hajipur.
11. District Panchayati Raj Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur.
12. Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Tisiauta, P.S. - Tisiauta, Vaishali at Hajipur.
13. Junior Engineer, Manrega, Block - Hajipur, Vaishali at Hajipur.
14. Assistant Engineer, Manrega, D.R.D.A- Hajipur, Vaishali at Hajipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harshit Griyaghey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
2 25-03-2026 This writ petition, in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation, has been filed seeking the following relief(s):-
“I. For issuing a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the inquiry report dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.2863 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/6
13.04.2023 prepared by the respondent
authorities with regard to the work done under
the Manrega Scheme from the year 2016 to
2021 as the same are mala-fide, irregular and
contradictory in itself showing huge difference
in the embezzlement of public-fund which is far
away from the true facts. The said reports lacks
transparency and are manipulated to save the
skin of wrong doers.
II. For issuing a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the inquiry report dated
02.09.2022 prepared by the respondent
authorities with regard to the work done under
the State-funded projects in Tisiauta Gram
Panchayat from the year 2016 to 2021 as the
same is manipulated and has whitewashed
serious fiscal fraud involving public exchequer.
III. For issuing a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the Vigilance Department
or Lokayukta to conduct an independent inquiry
into the alleged embezzlement of amount and
quality of work done in between the period from
2016 to 2021 under the MGNREGA scheme and
State Government in Tisiauta Gram Panchayat
as the previous directions were circumvented
through superficial compliance and lacked
transparency.
IV. For issuing a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the District Magistrate or
a senior officer not below the rank of Additional
Patna High Court CWJC No.2863 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/6
Collector to consider the petitioner's
representation afresh and pass a reasoned and
speaking order after granting personal hearing
as the BDO earlier disposed of the
representation in haste manner to shield the
erring officials.
V. For issuing a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the State Government to
initiate departmental proceedings under the
relevant service rules as well as criminal
proceedings under Prevention of Corruption
Act and BNS on the erring officials as public
money/ government fund has been
misappropriated and manipulated reports were
used to cover up the wrongdoing.
VI. For issuing a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the State Government to
frame guidelines ensuring transparency,
accountability, and citizen participation in the
development projects taken up under the state
government as there are systemic failure in
ensuring fair and effective work quality.
VII. For issuance any other
writ/writs, direction/directions or order/orders
for which your lordships deem that the
petitioner is entitled for.”
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the State raises a
preliminary objection, submitting that the petitioner had earlier
approached this Court in an identical prayer in C.W.J.C. No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2863 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
4/6
8108 of 2021, which was disposed of on 19.07.2021, with the
following directions:-
“As such, petition stands disposed of
in the following terms:-
(a) Petitioner shall approach the
Block Development Officer, Patepur, District-
Vaishali at Hajipur within a period of four
weeks from today by filing a representation for
redressal of the grievance(s);
(b) The Block Development Officer,
Patepur, District- Vaishali at Hajipur shall
consider and dispose it of expeditiously by a
reasoned and speaking order preferably within
a period of three months from the date of its
filing along with a copy of this order;
(c) Needless to add, while
considering such representation, principles of
natural justice shall be followed and due
opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties;
(d) Equally, liberty is reserved to the
petitioner to take recourse to such alternative
remedies as are otherwise available in
accordance with law;
(e) We are hopeful that as and when
petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as
are otherwise available in law, before the
appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with,
in accordance with law and with reasonable
dispatch;
Patna High Court CWJC No.2863 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
5/6
(f) Liberty reserved to the petitioner
to approach the Court, if the need so rises
subsequently on the same and subsequent cause
of action;
(g) We have not expressed any
opinion on merits. All issues are left open;
(h) The proceedings, during the time
of current Pandemic- Covid-19 shall be
conducted through digital mode, unless the
parties otherwise mutually agree to meet in
person i.e. physical mode;
The petition stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of.”
Learned counsel for the State further submits that, in
compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a
representation, which has already been duly considered and
disposed of by the competent authority. Hence, it is contended
that the present second Public Interest Litigation on the same
cause of action is not maintainable and ought not to be
entertained.
3. Having considered the submissions and upon
perusal of the order dated 19.07.2021 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
8108 of 2021 (Annexure-P/2), as well as the order passed by the
Block Development Officer, Patepur (Vaishali) on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2863 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
6/6
petitioner’s representation, we find that an appropriate inquiry
was conducted by the competent authority pursuant to the said
representation, and necessary legal action has already been
taken against the erring person(s).
4. In the event the petitioner is dissatisfied with the
action taken, it remains open to him to avail appropriate
remedies in accordance with law. However, a second Public
Interest Litigation seeking the self-same relief cannot be
entertained.
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
( Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.