Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Bhagwan SinghversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors

Decided
Disposal
CONSIGNED

Holding

The petition was rejected, and no writ of mandamus was issued.

Summary

Petitioner Bhagwan Singh filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing various state officials to remove defects in his poly house or pay compensation. The petition alleged that the respondents, including the State of Bihar and horticulture officials, were responsible for the defects. The court noted that a notice was issued to respondent No.7 on 13-11-2025, which was not complied with, leading to the petition being rejected on 04-12-2025. No substantive hearing on the merits was recorded. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without granting any relief.

Issues considered

  • What relief, if any, is appropriate under the writ jurisdiction for the removal of defects in the petitioner's poly house or payment of compensation?

Subjects

  • writ jurisdiction
  • mandamus
  • compensation
  • poly house
  • state liability

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6172 of 2016
                  ======================================================
                  Bhagwan Singh Son of Late Bishwananth Singh Resident of Village-
                  Rupanchak Police Station- Hathua, District- Gopalganj.

                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
            1.    The State Of Bihar
            2.    The Collector/District Magistrate, Gopalganj District- Gopalganj.
            3.    The Director, Mission, State Horticulture Mission, Bihar, Patna.
            4.    The Assistant Director, Horticulture District- Gopalganj.
            5.    The District Horticulture, Officer, Gopalganj District- Gopalganj.
            6.    The Disttrict Agriculturer Officer, Gopalganj District- Gopalganj.
            7.    The Director, Manas Agriculture and Technology, India Pvt. Ltd. Near Palm
                  View Hospital, Police Sta

                                                            ... ... Respondent/s
                  ======================================================
                  Appearance :
                  For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr.Umesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
                  For the Respondent/s   :        Mr.Gp2- Rajiv Kr.Singh
                  ======================================================
                  CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                        ORAL ORDER

10   05-01-2026                  Heard the parties.

                                2. The present petition has been preferred for the

                    following relief/s:

                                             (i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the

                                             nature of Mandamus for directing the

                                             respondents to remove the defects occurs in

                                             the poly house of the petitioner or pay the

                                             compensation or repair the poly house;

                                             (ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ in

                                             nature of mandamus for directing the
         Patna High Court CWJC No.6172 of 2016(10) dt.05-01-2026
                                                    2/2




                                           respondents        authorities    to    pay    the

                                           compensation to the petitioner;

                                           (iii) for issuance of any other appropriate

                                           writ/ writs, order/ orders, direction /

                                           directions for which the writ petitioner will

                                           be    found      entitled   in   the   facts   and

                                           circumstances of the case.

                               3. On 13.11.2025, notice was issued to respondent

                   no.7 and the order was peremptory.

                               4. As the same was not complied, it stood rejected on

                   04.12.2025.

                               5. Perused the file, consigned.



                                                 (Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-

U


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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