[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Babita Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 18 July, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11284 of 2025
======================================================
Babita Devi Wife of Abhay Karan, Resident of Village- Baduaa, P.O.- Ram
Nagar, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, District- Siwan.
4. The District Education Officer, District- Siwan.
5. The Block Education Officer, Block- Raghunathpur District- Siwan.
6. The Circle Officer, Block- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.
7. Vishwanath Singh, Son of Kaushal Kishore Singh, Resident of Village-
Baduaa (Narsingh Dumri), P.O.- Ram Nagar, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District-
Siwan.
8. Maheshwar Singh, Son of Kaushal Kishore Singh, Resident of Village-
Baduaa (Narsingh Dumri), P.O.- Ram Nagar, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District-
Siwan.
9. Singheshwar Singh, Son of Kaushal Kishore Singh, Resident of Village-
Baduaa (Narsingh Dumri), P.O.- Ram Nagar, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District-
Siwan.
10. Ranjan Singh, Son of Kaushal Kishore Singh, Resident of Village- Baduaa
(Narsingh Dumri), P.O.- Ram Nagar, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.
11. Rocky Singh @ Golu Singh, S/o Late Kaushal Kishore Singh, Resident of
Village- Baduaa (Narsingh Dumri), P.O.- Ram Nagar, P.S.- Raghunathpur,
District- Siwan.
12. Sanjay Singh @ Mantu Singh, S/o- Late Maheshwar Singh, Resident of
Village- Baduaa (Narsingh Dumri), P.O.- Ram Nagar, P.S.- Raghunathpur,
District- Siwan.
13. Vinod Kumar Singh, S/o- Late Singheshwar Singh, Resident of Village-
Baduaa (Narsingh Dumri), P.O.- Ram Nagar, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District-
Siwan.
14. Brajesh Singh, S/o Late Singheshwar Singh, Resident of Village- Baduaa
(Narsingh Dumri), P.O.- Ram Nagar, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjeet Kumar,
Ms.Lakshmi Kumari,
Mr.Kanishk Kaustubh &
Mr.Ranjish Prakash, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG 13
Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
2/14
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-07-2025
In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for
the following relief (s) :-
“I. For issuance of direction to the
Circle Officer, Raghunathpur, District
Siwan to not to allow the mutation of the
land to the private respondents relating to
the land appertaining to Khata No. 44,
Plot No. 216 & 217 situated at village
Parsuram Dumri, upon which one
government school is situated and the
land originally belongs to Ram
Singhashan Lal who has never executed
any deed in favour of the private
respondents.
II. For issuance of direction to
the Respondents Authorities to restrain
the private respondents from creating any
obstruction in construction of the
Building/ Room in Rajkiya Primary
School, Baduaa as the private
respondents have forcibly restrained the
construction.
III. For issuance of the
direction to the respondent’s authorities
to remove the encroachment created by
the private respondents upon the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
3/14aforementioned land as the land
originally belongs to Ram Sighashan Lal,
who orally gifted the entire land to the
Government and upon which one primary
school is situated and remaining lands
are used for the school purposes.
IV. For any other relief/reliefs
for which the petitioner may be deemed
entitled to.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
land appertaining to Khata No. 44, Plot No. 216, 217 situated at
Village- Parsurampur, Dumri, Circle Office- Raghunathpur,
Siwan beongs to the Khatiyani raiyat Ram Singhshan Lal, as is
evident from the extract of Khatiyan, as contained in Annexure-
P/1. It is further submitted that the Khatiyani raiyat orally gifted
the land in question to the Government of Bihar and on the said
land the Primary School, Baduaa was constructed in the year
1953. Presently the school has altogether 7 rooms and one other
school namely New Primary School, Basantpur has also been
tagged alongwith this school. It is further submitted that the
aforesaid school is also reflected on the website of the Ministry
of Education, Government of India, as is evident from the
School Report Card obtained from the website of the Ministry
of Education, Government of India, as contained in Annexure-
P/3.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
4/14
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the State has
raised the issue of maintainability of the present writ petition.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no locus standi
to maintain the present writ petition as none of his legal rights
has been infringed, and hence, on this ground alone the present
writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
4. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties and perused the record. A preliminary objection has been
raised by the State with regard to maintainability of the writ
petition on the ground that no personal injury has been caused to
the writ petitioner, and as such, petitioner has no locus to file the
present writ petition. It is a well settled law that a person, who
raises a grievance, has to show as to how he/she has suffered
legal injury and in absence thereof, a stranger having no right
whatsoever cannot be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction
of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
A legal right means an entitlement which arises out of statute
meaning thereby that it can be said to be an advantage or a
benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus,
existence of legal right of a person complaining infringement of
his rights is the foundation for exercise of writ jurisdiction by
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It
Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
5/14
is also a well-settled law that a person shall have no locus standi
to file a writ petition if he/she is not personally affected by the
impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been
directly or substantially embodied nor is there any eminent
danger of such rights being embodied. Thus, the relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is based on the existence
of a right in favor of person invoking the jurisdiction and the
exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ
applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed
in public interest, which is not the case herein.
5. In this context, the judgments rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ayaaubkhan @
Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, reported
in (2013) 4 SCC 465 and Vinoy Kumar vs. The State of U.P. &
Others, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 734 are quite relevant on the
issue.
6. Paragraphs 9 to 17 of the the judgment in the case
of Ayaaubkhan @ Noorkhan Pathan (Supra) is quoted
hereinbelow for ready reference :-
“9. It is a settled legal proposition that
a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in
any proceeding, unless he satisfies the
authority/court, that he falls within the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
6/14category of aggrieved persons. Only a
person who has suffered, or suffers from
legal injury can challenge the
act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution is maintainable either for the
purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal
right, or when there is a complaint by the
appellant that there has been a breach of
statutory duty on the part of the authorities.
Therefore, there must be a judicially
enforceable right available for enforcement,
on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is
resorted to. The Court can, of course,
enforce the performance of a statutory duty
by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction
at the behest of a person, provided that such
person satisfies the Court that he has a legal
right to insist on such performance. The
existence of such right is a condition
precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction
of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of
such extraordinary jurisdiction that the
relief prayed for must be one to enforce a
legal right. In fact, the existence of such
right, is the foundation of the exercise of the
said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal
right that can be enforced must ordinarily
be the right of the appellant himself, who
complains of infraction of such right and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
7/14approaches the Court for relief as regards
the same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan
Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024], Saghir
Ahmad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 728],
Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State
of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044], Rajendra
Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460]
and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank
Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar
[(2009) 2 SCC 784] .
10. A “legal right”, means an
entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus,
it may be defined as an advantage, or a
benefit conferred upon a person by the rule
of law. The expression, “person aggrieved”
does not include a person who suffers from
a psychological or an imaginary injury; a
person aggrieved must, therefore,
necessarily be one whose right or interest
has been adversely affected or jeopardised.
(Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home
Insurance Co. of New York [(1974) 2 SCC
387] and State of Rajasthan v. Union of
India [(1977) 3 SCC 592].
11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v.
University of Mumbai [(2008) 5 SCC 217],
a similar view was taken by this Court,
observing that, if a person claiming relief is
not eligible as per requirement, then he
cannot be said to be a person aggrieved
Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
8/14
regarding the election or the selection of
other persons.
12. In A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P.
[(2011) 7 SCC 616], this Court held: (SCC
pp. 628-29, para 25)
“25. … The expression ‘aggrieved
person’ denotes an elastic and an elusive
concept. It cannot be confined within the
bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive
definition. Its scope and meaning depends
on diverse, variable factors such as the
content and intent of the statute of which the
contravention is alleged, the specific
circumstances of the case, the nature and
extent of the complainant’s interest and the
nature and the extent of the prejudice or
injury suffered by the complainant.”
13. This Court, even as regards the
filing of a habeas corpus petition, has
explained that the expression “next friend”
means a person who is not a total stranger.
Such a petition cannot be filed by one who is
a complete stranger to the person who is in
alleged illegal custody. [Vide Charanjit Lal
Chowdhury v. Union of India [1950 SCC
833 : AIR 1951 SC 41], Sunil Batra (2) v.
Delhi Admn. [(1980) 3 SCC 488], Nilima
Priyadarshini v. State of Bihar [1987 Supp
SCC 732], Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union
of India [(1992) 4 SCC 653], Karamjeet
Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
9/14Singh v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 666]
and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. [(2013)
2 SCC 398].
14. This Court has consistently
cautioned the courts against entertaining
public interest litigation filed by
unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do
not hesitate to abuse the process of court.
The right of effective access to justice,
which has emerged with the new social
rights regime, must be used to serve basic
human rights, which purport to guarantee
legal rights and, therefore, a workable
remedy within the framework of the judicial
system must be provided. Whenever any
public interest is invoked, the court must
examine the case to ensure that there is in
fact, genuine public interest involved. The
court must maintain strict vigilance to
ensure that there is no abuse of the process
of court and that, “ordinarily meddlesome
bystanders are not granted a visa”. Many
societal pollutants create new problems of
non-redressed grievances, and the court
should make an earnest endeavour to take
up those cases, where the subjective purpose
of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide P.S.R.
Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam [(1980) 3
SCC 141], Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.
[(2010) 2 SCC 114], State of Uttaranchal v.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
10/14
Balwant Singh Chaufal [(2010) 3 SCC 402]
& Amar Singh v. Union of India [(2011) 7
SCC 69].
15. Even as regards the filing of a public
interest litigation, this Court has
consistently held that such a course of
action is not permissible so far as service
matters are concerned. (Vide Duryodhan
Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7
SCC 273], Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v.
State of Maharashtra [(2005) 1 SCC 590]
and Neetu v. State of Punjab [(2007) 10
SCC 614].
16. In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal
[(2002) 1 SCC 33], this Court considered a
similar issue and observed as under: (SCC
p. 54, para 38) “38. There is no dispute
regarding the legal proposition that the
rights under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India can be enforced only by an
aggrieved person except in the case where
the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or
quo warranto. Another exception in the
general rule is the filing of a writ petition in
public interest. The existence of the legal
right of the petitioner which is alleged to
have been violated is the foundation for
invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court
under the aforesaid article. The orthodox
rule of interpretation regarding the locus
Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
11/14
standi of a person to reach the court has
undergone a sea change with the
development of constitutional law in our
country and the constitutional courts have
been adopting a liberal approach in dealing
with the cases or dislodging the claim of a
litigant merely on hypertechnical
grounds. … In other words, if the person is
found to be not merely a stranger having no
right whatsoever to any post or property, he
cannot be non-suited on the ground of his
not having the locus standi.”
17. In view of the above, the law on the
said point can be summarised to the effect
that a person who raises a grievance, must
show how he has suffered legal injury.
Generally, a stranger having no right
whatsoever to any post or property, cannot
be permitted to intervene in the affairs of
others.”
7. Paragraph 2 of the judgment in the case of Vinoy
Kumar (supra) is quoted herein below:-
“2. Generally speaking, a person shall have
no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is
not personally affected by the impugned
order or his fundamental rights have neither
been directly or substantially invaded nor is
there any imminent danger of such rights
being invaded or his acquired interests have
Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
12/14been violated ignoring the applicable rules.
The relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution is based on the existence of a
right in favour of the person invoking the
jurisdiction. The exception to the general
rule is only in cases where the writ applied
for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo
warranto or filed in public interest. It is a
matter of prudence, that the court confines
the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases
where legal wrong or legal injuries are
caused to a particular person or his
fundamental rights are violated, and not to
entertain cases of individual wrong or injury
at the instance of third party where there is
an effective legal aid organisation which can
take care of such cases. Even in cases filed
in public interest, the court can exercise the
writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third
party only when it is shown that the legal
wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is
threatened and such person or determined
class of persons is, by reason of poverty,
helplessness or disability or socially or
economically disadvantaged position, unable
to approach the court for relief.”
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, the discussions made above and the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan
Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
13/14
Pathan (supra) and Vinoy Kumar (supra), the present writ
petition is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the State submits
that petitioner is the Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat
and she has raised the grievance with regard to functioning of a
Government School before the District Magistrate, Siwan by
way of letter dated 24.03.2025, as contained in Annexure-P/6.
He submits that in case petitioner files a fresh representation
before the District Magistrate, Siwan raising the grievances, as
has been raised in the present writ petition, the same shall be
looked into.
10. In the light of the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the State and considering that the issue is
related to a Government School and the District Magistrate has
not taken any action on the letter/representation submitted by
the petitioner, who is Mukhiya of the concerned Gram
Panchayat, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to
the petitioner to represent her grievance afresh before the
District Magistrate, Siwan within a period of five weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such representation
is filed within the stipulated time, the District Magistrate, Siwan
shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass
Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
14/14
appropriate order in accordance with law after giving due
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, without being
prejudiced by the order passed by this Court.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
mcverma/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 24.07.2025 Transmission Date
[ad_2]
Source link