Patna High Court
CWJC/6091/2026 of Chandan Kumar Shanee Vs The State of Bihar on 27 July 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6091 of 2026 ====================================================== Chandan Kumar Shanee Son of Lakshami Shanee, Resident of Village- Lallu Pokhar, Godhi Tola, P.S.- Kasim Bazar, District- Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6091 of 2026
======================================================
Chandan Kumar Shanee Son of Lakshami Shanee, Resident of Village- Lallu Pokhar, Godhi Tola, P.S.- Kasim Bazar, District- Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The District Magistrate, Munger.
3.
The Municipal Commissioner, Munger Nagar Nigam, Munger.
4.
The Executive Engineer, Urban Development Division, Munger Nagar Nigam, Area Munger.
5.
The Assistant Engineer, Urban Development Division, Munger Nagar Nigam, Area Munger.
6.
The Junior Engineer, Urban Development Division, Munger Nagar Nigam, Area Munger.
7.
Amit Anand, S/o- Not Known, (Contractor of the Present works), C/o- Munger Nagar Nigam, Munger.
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
:
Mr. Mukesh Kant, Advocate
:
Mr. Ranjeet Patel, Advocate
:
Mr. Avnish Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State
:
Mr. Government Advocate-5
For the Municipal Corp. Munger:
Mr. K.N. Sahay, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
27-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ application in the form of a Public Interest Litigation has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “i.To issue mandamus against the respondents who are sitting tight over upon Patna High Court CWJC No.6091 of 2026(2) dt.27-07-2026
the complaint made by this petitioner with respect of construction of drainage in which sub standard materials has been used by the contractor and for which petitioner being a Ex-Ward counselor of the said ward in which construction is go in on has made complain before the Respondents.
ii. To further command the respondents who are not acting in accordance with law in spite of complaint made by this petitioner and misappropriating the public money and upon request made by this petitioner not investigated the fact which is raised by this petitioner.”
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the work awarded to Respondent No. 7 under Tender Invitation Notice No. 09/2023-24 is being executed by using sub-standard materials and in deviation from the prescribed specifications, thereby adversely affecting the quality and durability of the drainage project. It is contended that despite repeated complaints made by the local residents and representations submitted before the Municipal Commissioner, Munger Nagar Nigam, as well as the District Magistrate, Munger, no effective action has been taken by the authorities.
4. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
5. The present writ petition has been filed alleging use of sub-standard materials in the execution of a public work.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6091 of 2026(2) dt.27-07-2026
However, except for bald and general allegations, no cogent material has been brought on record to substantiate the assertions made in the writ petition. No technical report, inspection report, expert opinion, or any other reliable material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the work is in fact being executed contrary to the approved specifications.
6. A Public Interest Litigation must rest upon a credible factual foundation and cannot be entertained on vague, unsubstantiated or speculative allegations.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Suruchi/- (Sudhir Singh, ACJ) (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U