Patna High Court
Tinku PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition was held to be infructuous due to the lapse of time and was disposed of.
Summary
Tinku Paswan filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court challenging a 15 April 2024 order by the Divisional Commissioner that directed the Nagar Panchayat to collect tax on two Sairats and to conduct a fresh auction, seeking certiorari, mandamus and a declaration that the settlement was not covered by the Model Code of Conduct. He alleged the order was illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and also requested protection of his settlement agreement dated 1 April 2024. The matter was heard on 27 April 2026. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, owing to the passage of time, the petition had become infructuous. The court accepted this submission, held the petition to be infructuous, and disposed of it without further adjudication on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the petition challenging the tax collection and auction order is maintainable after the lapse of time
- Whether the settlement of Sairat is covered by the Model Code of Conduct under Article 324 of the Constitution
Subjects
- Sairat
- tax collection
- certiorari
- mandamus
- Model Code of Conduct
- election law
- petition infructuous
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7313 of 2024
======================================================
Tinku Paswan Son of Sahdeo Paswan, Resident of Mohalla- Raniganj,
Paswan Tola, Ward No.-4, P.O.Maryganj, P.S. Raniganj, District- Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and Housing
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea.
4. The Nagar Panchayat, Raniganj, P.O. and P.S. Raniganj, District- Araria.
5. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Raniganj, P.O. and P.S. Raniganj,
District- Araria.
6. Murli Manohar Singh, Son of not known to the petitioner, Resident of
Mohalla- Raniganj, Ward No. 17, P.O. Maryganj, P.S. Raniganj, District-
Araria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Awnish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader 06
For respondent no. 4&5 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to SC-15
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 27-04-2026 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 order dated CERTIORARI for
quashing the 15.04.2024 passed by the
Respondent no.3 and contained in his memo
no.372 dated 15.04.2024 whereby and where
Patna High Court CWJC No.7313 of 2024(5) dt.27-04-2026
2/3
under the Respondent no.3 has been pleased
to direct the Respondent no.5 to allow the
Respondent no.6 for collection of tax of two
Sairats till 06.06.2024 and thereafter to take
fresh auction for settlement of Sairat in
question in accordance with law fixing Rs.62
Lacs as the minimum reserved price;
(ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the
nature of MANDAMUS commanding and
directing the Respondent Authorities not to
disturb the petitioner in collection of Sairat
in view of the settlement notice. Issued by the
Respondent no.5 followed by the agreement
dated 01.04.2024 in between the petitioner
and the Respondent no.5, according to which
the two Sairats were settled with the
petitioner from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025;
(iii) for a declaration that since the
settlement of Sairat is not covered by the
Model Code of Conduct prescribed by the
Election Commission of India in exercise of
its power under Article 324 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7313 of 2024(5) dt.27-04-2026
3/3
Constitution of India, the impugned order
passed by the Respondent no.3 cancelling
the petitioner's contract with the Respondent
no.5 is thoroughly Illegal, arbitrary and
malafide;
(iv) for issuance of any other appropriate
writ/writs. order/ orders, direction/directions
for which the writ petitioner would be found
entitled under the facts and circumstances of
the case..
3. Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that with the passage of time, the writ
petition has become infructuous.
4. As such, the same stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…