The Patna High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be directly invoked when the petitioner has not first sought redressal before the relevant administrative authority. The decision upholds the established principle of exhausting alternative remedies, reinforcing its application in public employment and administrative law settings. It stands as binding precedent for similar writ petitions concerning government appointments and service matters within Bihar.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWJC/15096/2025 of Kishor Kunal Vs The State of Bihar |
| CNR | BRHC010918842025 |
| Date of Registration | 11-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY |
| Court | Patna High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction of Patna High Court |
| Type of Law | Procedural / Administrative Law—Requirement to exhaust alternative remedy before writ remedy |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has not first approached the competent administrative authority for redressal of grievances. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court reiterated that before seeking relief under writ jurisdiction, petitioners must first attempt to redress their grievances with the appropriate administrative authority. Since the petitioner did not approach the District Panchayati Raj Officer before filing the writ, the Court declined to adjudicate on merits and instead directed the petitioner to make a representation to the said authority. Only after such representation and the outcome thereof should judicial intervention be considered. The writ was accordingly disposed of without entering into the merits. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought a mandamus for appointment as Nyaya Mitra based on a published merit list and challenged the candidature of a private respondent, but had not approached the District Panchayati Raj Officer with these grievances prior to approaching the Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and administrative authorities within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering maintainability of writ petitions absent exhaustion of alternative remedy |
| Follows | Established principles regarding exhaustion of alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment emphasizes that writ petitions will not be entertained if the petitioner has not first sought relief from the competent administrative authority.
- Lawyers must advise clients to make appropriate administrative representations and pursue available remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226.
- The Court will not adjudicate on merits where the petitioner bypasses alternative remedies, even for service disputes involving government appointments.
- Directions will be given to first approach the concerned authority; timelines may be prescribed for disposal of such representations.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court perused the writ petition and found no record that the petitioner had approached the District Panchayati Raj Officer (respondent no. 4) for redressal of the grievances.
- The Court cited the established procedural principle that where an effective alternative remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked directly.
- On this basis, without examining the substantive claims regarding the appointment, the Court directed the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority.
- It further directed that if such representation is filed within four weeks, the authority should decide the matter within three months after hearing all concerned parties.
- The writ petition was disposed of in these terms, without prejudice to the rights of the parties on merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought mandamus for appointment as Nyaya Mitra based on the final merit list.
- Prayed for direction to allow participation in counselling and to issue the appointment/engagement letter.
- Requested cancellation of the private respondent’s candidature on the basis of non-submission of EWS certificate.
Respondent (State)
No detailed counter submissions are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner participated in selection for the post of Nyaya Mitra in Gram Panchayat Raj, Nakuni, pursuant to Advertisement No. 1420. The petitioner’s name was published at Serial No. 1 in the final merit list but was not permitted to appear for counselling. The petitioner alleged that Vikas Kumar Singh, a private respondent whose name was initially rejected for lack of EWS certificate, was allowed counselling. The petitioner approached the High Court without first seeking remedy with the District Panchayati Raj Officer.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment concerns the procedural aspect of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court affirms the interpretive approach that writ petitions should not be entertained unless administrative remedies before the appropriate authority have been exhausted. No statutes were interpreted in detail; rather, the general principle of alternative remedy was applied.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment prescribes a specific procedure and timeline: If a representation is made to the District Panchayati Raj Officer within four weeks, it must be decided within three months after hearing all concerned parties.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.