Patna High Court
Pappu SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court disposed of the petition without ordering contempt proceedings, directing that any challenge to the 2019 decision be filed within four weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Pappu Sah, filed a writ petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Circle Officer (CO) of Dumra, Sitamarhi, alleging wilful violation of a June 20, 2024 order directing the CO to dispose of the petitioner’s representation within three months. The CO appeared before the court and submitted a second show‑cause notice, explaining that a decision on the petitioner’s case (Case No. 6403R27/2018‑2019) had actually been taken on November 27, 2019, but was only discovered on January 28, 2026 after a thorough search. The court noted that the CO was unaware of the 2019 order when handling the limitation petition and directed that the petitioner may challenge the order within four weeks, after which the matter would be heard on its merits. Ultimately, the court disposed of the miscellaneous jurisdiction case, dispensing with the CO’s personal appearance and leaving the contempt application unresolved. The petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Circle Officer wilfully violated the June 20, 2024 order directing disposal of the petitioner’s representation within three months.
- Whether contempt proceedings can be initiated against the Circle Officer for the alleged violation.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a further hearing on the merits of the 2019 decision.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- writ jurisdiction
- administrative delay
- limitation period
- circle officer
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1798 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3483 of 2024
======================================================
Pappu Sah Son of Ram Sundar Sah, Resident of Village- Asogi, P.S. Riga,
District Sitamarhi (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Shri Jai Singh Son of not known to the petitioner, Secretary, Revenue and
Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. Shri Richie Pandey Son of not known to the petitioner, District Magistrate,
Sitamarhi.
4. Sri Rakesh Gupta Son of not known to the petitioner, Deputy Collector Land
Reforms, Sitamarhi.
5. Sri Mahesh Prasad Chaudhary Son of not known to the petitioner, Circle
Officer, Dumra, District Sitamarhi.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajan Prakash, AC to GA-02
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 30-01-2026 Heard Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned G.A.-02.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for initiation of a contempt
proceeding against the opposite party
no. 5 for wilfully, deliberately and
intentionally violated the order dated
20.06.2024 passed in CWJC No.
Patna High Court MJC No.1798 of 2025(4) dt.30-01-2026
2/3
3483/2024 by the whereby this Court
has directed the Circle Officer to
dispose of the representation of the
petitioner preferably within the period
of three months from the date of petition
preferred by the writ petitioner.
3. The Circle Officer, Dumra, Sitamarhi is present in
the Court. Though, earlier, a show cause was filed, now the
second show cause has been filed by the same Officer stating
that upon search, it was found that on 27.11.2019 itself, the case
related to the petitioner (Case No. 6403R27/2018-2019) was
rejected and after hectic search, on 28.01.2026, it came to light.
As such, immediate second show cause has been filed. The
Officer present in the Court alongwith the file to support the
said contention.
4. It is unfortunate that a decision was taken in the
year 2019 itself, the Circle Office, Dumra was unaware of it and
the same order has now come. However, since an order has been
provided, the petitioner has to challenge the same.
5. This Court must observe that if the petitioner
challenges the same in next four weeks, the concerned authority
shall hear the matter on merit and shall take into account that he
Patna High Court MJC No.1798 of 2025(4) dt.30-01-2026
3/3
was unaware of the order dated 2019 while dealing with the
limitation petition.
6. The MJC No. 1798 of 2025 is disposed of.
7. The personal appearance of the C.O., Dumra is
dispensed with.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…