Patna High Court
Nagina SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court declined to grant the writs and directed the petitioners to approach the competent authority for redressal.
Summary
The petitioners, Nagina Sahani and Sunil Sahni, filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking to quash Memo No. 98 dated 10‑01‑2025 issued by the District Fisheries Officer, which denied their claim for a refund of Rs 7,10,984 with interest. They also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to return the amount they had deposited under a 2012 letter, arguing that the revenue due pertained to earlier societies, not the new one. The respondents, representing the State of Bihar and various officials, opposed the relief. Justice Rajiv Roy, after hearing the parties on 28‑04‑2026, observed that the petitioners should pursue the grievance before the appropriate competent authority or court. He granted them liberty to do so and disposed of the writ petition without granting the relief sought. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the matter was left for redressal through the proper administrative channel.
Issues considered
- Whether Memo No. 98 denying the refund claim can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to return the deposited amount.
- Whether the petitioners have locus standi to approach the High Court directly for the refund.
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- refund claim
- government order
- jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7487 of 2025
======================================================
1. Nagina Sahani son of late Parmeshwar Sahni, resident of Village Andarkila,
Police Station-Hajipur Town, District Vaishali.
2. Sunil Sahni son of late Shiv Sahni resident of Village Andarkila, Machhua
Toli, Police Station- Hajipur Town, District Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Animal
Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Vaishali
4. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Vaishali
5. The District Fisheries Officer and Chief Executive Officer, Vaishali
6. Vijay Kumar Sahni, the ex-president of Hajipur Prakhand Matsya Givi
Sahyog Samiti, son of Late Ramnarayan Sahni resident of Mohalla
Hathsarganj, PO and PS-Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali, Pin-844103.
7. Gautam Sahni, the present Mantri/Koshadhyaksh of Hajipur Prakhand
Matsya Jivi Sahyog Samiti, resident of Mohalla - Hathsarganj, PO and PS-
Hajipur Town, District-Vaishali, Pin-844103.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Standing Counsel (20)
: Mr. Md. Zeeshan Kalim, AC to SC-20
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“for the issuance of an appropriate
writ, order, or direction, particularly in the
nature of certiorari, to quash the order
contained in Memo No. 98 dated 10/01/2025,
passed by Respondent No. 5, which declines the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7487 of 2025(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/2
claim of the petitioners for the refund of
Rs.7,10,984/- along with interest thereon.
Further prayer is being made for the
issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus,
directing the respondents to return the aforesaid
amount i.e. Rs.7,10,984/- (due against the
previous societies) deposited by the petitioners
in compliance with letter No. 284 dated
11/08/2012. The alleged due revenue amount,
however, does not belong to the new society but
to the previous four societies.”
3. Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners after some argument submit that the petitioner shall
be taking appropriate steps in accordance with law by
approaching the competent authority/court for the redressal of
the grievance.
4. Granting said liberty, the writ petition is disposed
of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…