Patna High Court
Sunita JaiswalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be entertained until the petitioner first files a representation before the concerned officer, who must then decide within a stipulated period.
Summary
Sunita Jaiswal filed a writ petition seeking monetary benefits for the period from 31‑08‑2012 (date of removal) to 27‑01‑2024 (reinstatement). She requested a writ of mandamus directing the State to pay the amount. The State objected, contending that a mandamus cannot be issued without the petitioner first making a representation to the District Programme Officer. The Court held that the petition was premature and ordered the petitioner to file a representation before the District Programme Officer, who must decide within 90 days. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of pending the representation.
Issues considered
- What is the prerequisite for invoking a writ of mandamus against a government department in the absence of a prior representation by the petitioner?
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- representation
- administrative law
- social welfare
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9030 of 2025
======================================================
Sunita Jaiswal Wife of Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Choudhari, Resident of
Chauhatta, Ward No. 8, P.S.-Kishanpur, Block-Kishanpur, District-Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Director, Welfare Department, Kosi Division, Saharsa.
5. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Supaul.
6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul.
7. The District Programme Officer, Supaul.
8. The Block Development Project Officer, Kishanpur, District-Supaul.
9. The Child Development Project Officer, Kishanpur, District-Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (24)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 05-05-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
i) For the issuance of an
appropriate Writ/Direction to the
respondents to pay the monetary benefit of
petitioner during the intervening period from
31.8.2012 the date of removal to the date of
reinstatement i.e. 27.1.2024.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9030 of 2025(2) dt.05-05-2026
2/2
(ii) For the issuance of any other
relief or reliefs as your Lordships may deem
fit and proper.
3. Learned counsel for the State raises a preliminary
objection and submits that a writ of mandamus has been sought,
but no representation has been made.
4. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition
stands disposed of, directing the petitioner to first file a
representation before the District Programme Officer, Supaul
(respondent No. 7). Upon receipt of the same, respondent No. 7
is hereby directed to take a decision on the petitioner’s
representation within 90 days thereafter.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…