The Court should not or rarely be considered for matters that may not be urgent or for litigation that is primarily directed against a single organization or individual: Patna High Court.

This case was brought against the State of Bihar by Bhagwan Kumar Mahto, the son of Basudeo Mahto and a resident of the village of Dumari Chapya in the Taraiyan Police Station in the Saran District.In the case of Bhagwan Kumar Mahto vs.Bihar, the Indian state (Citation:The honorable bench of HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. served CWJC No. 491 of 2022).S. KUMAR, JUSTICE

Facts of the case

In accordance with Article 226 of the Indian Constitution of 1950, this case was resolved.Through this petition, the petitioner asks the court to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities of the Respondents to sift the Power Greed station from Village-Dumari Chapya, Ward No.One, Thana, No140 with Khata numberSurvey No. 193,822 is a public land with an area of 14 Katha 10 Dhur. It has been a public way and public land of the village of Dumari for more than 100 years. The construction of a power greed station on the main public way of the village is bad for the lives and freedom of the villagers, and there is no other way for the village of Dumari Chapya to connect to the Public Works Department’s main road.In addition, the Petitioner asks the Court to direct the Respondent to construct a school and any other offices for the benefit of society in accordance with the law and in the interest of justice following the delineation of the village’s public way, which provides the villagers with essential amenities.


After hearing the arguments, the court dismissed the case with the following statement:

The petitioner must submit a representation seeking redress for the grievance(s) to the relevant authority within four weeks of today;

  1. b) A reasoned and speaking order, preferably within four months of its filing along with a copy of this order, must be issued by the authority in question to consider and resolve the matter quickly.
  2. c) Naturally, natural justice principles must be adhered to and the parties must be afforded a fair hearing when considering such representation;
  3. d) In addition, the petitioner retains the right to use any legal alternative remedies that may be available in the event of a dispute;
  4. e) We hope that the petitioner’s legal recourses will be handled in accordance with the law and with reasonable promptness whenever he or she goes to the appropriate forum;

(f) The petitioner has the right to approach the court whenever the need arises on the same and subsequent cause of action;

  1. g) We have not provided an opinion regarding the merits. All issues remain unresolved.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”



Click here to view judgement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *