Patna High Court

Chandramadhaw SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 23 March 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner must first file a representation before the District Magistrate, and the writ petition is premature until that step is complied with.

Summary

Chandramadhaw Singh filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking a writ of mandamus against the State of Bihar and several officials to obtain a MACP benefit. The petitioner had not filed any representation before the authorities, arguing that the relief sought was continuous in nature. The State contended that a competent committee had already taken a decision and that the petition was premature, as a report from the Block Development Officer was still pending. The Court, after querying the petitioner, confirmed that no representation had been filed and directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the District Magistrate, who must then consider the case in light of the government decision and the pending report within 90 days. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of pending compliance with the Court’s direction.

Issues considered

Whether a writ of mandamus can be entertained when the petitioner has not filed a representation before the concerned authority.
Whether the writ petition is premature in view of pending administrative proceedings and a required report.

Subjects

writ of mandamus
representation
premature petition
administrative law
Patna High Court
direction to file representation
disposal

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3983 of 2026
                 ======================================================
                 Chandramadhaw Singh Son of Late Ramashry Singh Resident of Village-
                 Rehari, P.O.- Barahari, P.S.- Kargahar, Nokha, District- Rohtas.
                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj
                  Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
           2.    The District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram.
           3.    The Additional Collector Cum Additional District Magistrate, Rohtas,
                 Sasaram.
           4.    The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram.
           5.    The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Rohtas, Sasaram.
           6.    The Sub- Divisional Public Redressal Officer, Rohtas.
           7.    The District Welfare Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram.
                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s   :        Mr. Government Pleader (26)
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-03-2026                 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   counsel for the State.

                               2. By virtue of the present writ petition, the petitioner

                   has made request for issuance of writ of Mandamus, but

                   representation has not been filed.

                               3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   relief is continuous in nature, therefore, no need of filing any

                   representation.

                               4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,

                   submits that from Annexure-P/2, decision by the competent

                   committee has been taken with regard to the petitioner and his
             Patna High Court CWJC No.3983 of 2026(2) dt.23-03-2026
                                                         2/2




                       relief was not rejected, rather, demand of report from the Block

                       Development Officer, Nasriganj has been made. Therefore, he

                       submits that this writ petition is pre-mature.

                                   5. After hearing the parties and upon specific query

                       from this Court from counsel for the petitioner that whether the

                       petitioner has filed any representation for the relief demanded or

                       not, he submits that he has not filed any representation.

                                   6. In this background, this Court hereby directs the

                       petitioner to file his representation along with a copy of this

                       order    before      the    District    Magistrate,   Rohtas,   Sasaram

                       (Respondent no.2). Upon receipt of the same, the Respondent

                       no.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s case for grant of

                       MACP in the light of the decision taken by the Government

                       (Annexure-P/1) as well as on the basis of report which he has

                       already demanded from the Block Development Officer,

                       Nasriganj, within 90 days.

                                   7. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, this writ

                       petition stands disposed off.



                                                                      (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-

U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…