Patna High Court

Tanuja KumariversusThe State of Bihar through Sri. Amrit Pratyay,

Decided: 18 March 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: ALOK KUMAR SINHA

Holding

The Court held that the representation was disposed of by Memo No. 463 dated 10‑02‑2026, thereby complying with the writ court’s order, and the application was dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Tanuja Kumari, a Zila Parishad Chairman, filed a representation on 30 June 2025 as directed by a writ court order dated 25 June 2025, seeking redress of alleged irregularities in the functioning of the District Board. The District Magistrate failed to dispose of the representation within the four‑week period prescribed by the writ court and did not provide a reasoned order. The petitioner then moved this Court seeking punishment of the opposite parties for wilfully violating the earlier order. The Court examined the show‑cause response and the enquiry report submitted by the opposite parties, noting that the representation had been finally disposed of by Memo No. 463 dated 10 February 2026. Finding that the writ court’s directive had been complied with, the Court held that there was no ground to continue the present application and dismissed it, while allowing the petitioner to challenge the disposal order if dissatisfied.

Issues considered

Did the opposite parties wilfully violate the writ court order by not disposing the representation within the stipulated time?
Has the representation filed by the petitioner been duly disposed of in compliance with the writ court's directive?
Is the present application for punishment maintainable?

Subjects

Writ jurisdiction
Representation
Administrative law
District Magistrate
Panchayati Raj
Compliance with court order
Public authority
Delay in disposal

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3313 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9745 of 2025
======================================================
Tanuja Kumari Wife of Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Singh, Resident of
Village-Vishnupur, P.O-Ranipur, P.S-Islampur, District-Nalanda at
Biharsharif, at present Chariman of Zila Parishad, Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Sri. Amrit Pratyay, Son of not known to the
petitioner, Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Manoj Kumar Son of not known to the petitioner, The Additional Chief
Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Kundan Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner, The District Magistrate,
Nalanda
4. Dr. Chandrashekhar Singh, Son of not known to the petitioner, The
Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
5. Shri. Prashanth Kumar CH, Son of not known to the petitioner. The Director,
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
6. Sri. Khandekar Shrikant Kundalik, Son of not known to the petitioner,
Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District-
Nalanda at Biharsharif.
7. Tarun Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner. The Additional Chief
Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District-Nalanda
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Adv
Mr. Vardhan Mangalam, Adv
Ms. Ritika Rani, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General 13
For Executive Officer, Zila Parishad : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER

4 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Executive

Officer, Zila Parishad.

2. This application has been filed for punishing the

opposite parties for willfully and deliberately violating the order

dated 25.06.2025 passed in CWJC No. 9745 of 2025 by which

the petitioner was directed to file representation within one
Patna High Court MJC No.3313 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
2/7

week from the date of the order before the District Magistrate,

Nalanda and on receipt of the representation, the District

Magistrate, Nalanda was directed to dispose of the said

representation within a further period of four weeks after giving

an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by passing a

reasoned and speaking order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

compliance of the order passed by the writ court, the petitioner

had filed a representation on 30.06.2025 which has been

brought on record by way of Annexure P/2. He further submits

that despite filing of the representation within time stipulated by

the writ Court, the said representation was not disposed of by

the District Magistrate, Nalanda within the time stipulated by

the writ Court and neither any reasons have been assigned while

disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner.

4. By order dated 09.01.2026, this Court had directed

the District Magistrate, Nalanda to file show cause within four

weeks making its position clear as to whether the order passed

by the writ Court has been complied with or not and if not then

why?

5. In compliance of the order dated 09.01.2026 passed

by this court earlier, a show cause has been filed by the State
Patna High Court MJC No.3313 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
3/7

and in paragraph 11, it has been stated as follows:

“11. That the statements made in
para-12 to 53 of the M.J.C. petition related
to the matter of record as well as part of the
issues raised by the petitioner in
representation dated 30.06.2025, made by
him in pursuance to the order dated
25.06.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
9745/2025. In this regard it is respectfully
stated and submitted that in the light of the
said representation, the O.P No. 06 was
asked to submit an enquiry report with his
opinion for the purpose of compliance of the
aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Court vide
letter No. 3088, dated 17.07.2025 issued by
the answering O.P.
In pursuance to the said direction
the point wise and allegation wise report
was submitted by the O.P. No. 6 vide letter
no. 574, dated 11.08.2025. Thereafter, the
petitioner appeared on being noticed before
the answering O.P on 10.01.2026 and
participated in hearing on her
representation dated 30.06.2025.
After hearing the parties and
perusing the materials available on the
record including the enquiry report of the
O.P. No. 06, it was held by the O.P. No. 03
that main allegation of the petitioner is that
Patna High Court MJC No.3313 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
4/7

the work of the District Board is not being
conducted in accordance with departmental
guidelines, proceeding of the meeting of
District Board not prepared within the
prescribed time frame. It is also alleged that
the proceedings of the meetings used to be
submitted by omitting and tempering the
decision taken in the meeting and not
making file/ document available for
inspection before the meeting. The
employees of the District Board including
the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Head
Assistant, Deputed Accountant, Md. Tausif
are not discharging their duties properly, not
calling the meeting even after being given
written request, not complying with the
report/reply given by the petitioner, not
taking action even after irregularity
detected. It was further held that allegation
of the petitioner is also regarding not
maintaining the account register completely,
not taking the approval of the petitioner
before withdrawing money for the works of
the schemes of the 8th State Finance
Commission item, 5th State Finance
Commission items and other source items,
getting the case register, measurement book
checked by an employee without audit pass,
not getting no objection certificates on time,
not providing the information of the
Patna High Court MJC No.3313 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
5/7

allocation received for the schemes, not
complying the decision taken in the meeting
on time. It is stated in the report of the O.P.
No. 06 regarding the aforesaid facts that
most of the letters issued by the petitioner
have been complied with. Due to the
engagement of the O. P. No. 06 in large
scale National and International Sports
events i.e the Men's Asia Cups Hockey, 2025,
Khelo India Youth Games organized in the
District of Nalanda and maintaining law and
order at the event of Hon'ble Chief Minister
visit and preparations for the Bihar
Legislative Assembly Election, 2025,
meeting were not held on time on several
occasions. Furthermore, letters addressed to
the other allegations have also been
complied with. In such circumstances the
petitioner's allegation that action has not
been taken on her letters appears to be
baseless and devoid of truth. Therefore, in
the above discussed facts and circumstances
the representation dated 30.06.2025 filed by
the petitioner was disposed of vide order
contained in memo no. 463, dated
10.02.2026 by the O.P. No. 03 with following
directions:-
i. The O.P. No. 6-and-the
petitioner are directed to convene the
meeting of the District Board after
Patna High Court MJC No.3313 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
6/7

establishing mutual co-ordination and
deciding the Agenda before the
meeting.
ii. The O.P. No. 6 was
directed to ensure regular
maintenance of the cash register by
qualified and account pass employee.
iii. The O.P. No. 06 was
directed to take appropriate action
against the erring officials, after
making enquiry by an enquiry team in
the matter related to excess
withdrawal of the amount of the
scheme of construction of Yatri Shed
of the estimated amount Rs. 4,67,700/-
at village Dhanuki under the financial
Year, 2021-22 in Block- Sarmera and
digging of Paine of the estimated
amount Rs. 1,66,000/-.
iv. The O.P. No. 06 is
directed to get the matter related to
excess withdrawal of the amount of
scheme no. 124/2022-23 and
125/2022-23, under 15th finance
commission items in block- Tharthari
enquired by an enquiry team and if the
allegations are found to be true, the
earring officials should be identified
and action be taken against them as
per rule.”
Patna High Court MJC No.3313 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
7/7

6. From the reading of the above quoted statement, it

is evident that the representation filed by the petitioner has been

disposed of vide order contained in Memo No. 463 dated

10.02.2026. Learned counsel appearing for the State, therefore,

submits that the order of the writ Court has been complied with

and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order then he

always has the recourse of challenging the same in writ

jurisdiction.

7. Taking note of the fact that the representation filed

by the petitioner dated 30.06.2025 has been disposed of vide

order contained in Memo No. 463 dated 10.02.2026 passed by

the opposite party no. 3, nothing remains in this application to

be pursued further as the order of the writ Court has been

complied with.

8. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of

granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order contained

in Memo No. 463 dated 10.02.2026 passed by opposite party no.

3, if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the same.

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kiran/-
U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…