Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Brajendra Narain DasversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The petition is disposed as there is no remaining matter to adjudicate after the issuance of the reasoned order.

Summary

Petitioner Brajendra Narain Das filed a civil writ petition challenging actions of the State of Bihar and Munger University. The court had earlier issued an order on 29.01.2026, after which Munger University filed a counter‑affidavit containing a reasoned order dated 04.02.2026. The court observed that the reasoned order had already been passed, leaving no substantive issue for adjudication. Consequently, the petitioner was advised that any further challenge must be pursued in a separate writ petition. The present writ petition was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

  • What is the effect of a previously passed reasoned order on the continuance of a pending writ petition?

Subjects

  • civil writ jurisdiction
  • mootness
  • reasoned order
  • counter affidavit
  • petition disposed

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3408 of 2025
                 ======================================================
                 Brajendra Narain Das Son of Late Upendra Narayan Das, Resident of 16,
                 Road No.2, Magistrate Colony P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, Patna-800025.

                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
                 Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
           2.    The Chancellor of Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.
           3.    The Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna.
           4.    Munger University, Munger, through its Registrar.
           5.    The Vice Chancellor, Munger University, Munger.
           6.    The Registrar Munger University, Munger.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Shiv Pratap, Advocate
                                                 Mr. Punit Kumar, Advocate
                                                 Mr. Uditya Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s     :      Mr. Standing Counsel (20)
                                                 Mr. Md. Zeeshan Kalim, AC to SC-20
                 For the University       :      Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   10-02-2026                        Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   counsel for the University and learned counsel for the State

                                 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on

                   29.01.2026, the learned counsel for the Munger University has

                   filed a counter affidavit and has apprised this Court with respect

                   to the adjudication made regarding the claim of the petitioner by

                   passing a reasoned and speaking order in terms of the letter

                   issued by the Government Secretariat vide Memo No.437 dated

                   23.03.2023, by the Vice-Chancellor and the same is kept in
           Patna High Court CWJC No.3408 of 2025(5) dt.10-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     Letter No.08/2026 dated 04.02.2026, which is appended with

                     the counter affidavit as Annexure-H.

                                 3. Now, since the reasoned and speaking order has

                     already been passed, nothing survives to be adjudicated.

                     However, the petitioner is left with a liberty to challenge the

                     same in a separate writ petition, if so advised.

                                 4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.



                                                  (Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.