Patna High Court
CWJC/6582/2026 of Dharamraj Rai @ Dharamraj Ray Vs The State of Bihar on 14 July 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6582 of 2026 ====================================================== Dharamraj Rai @ Dharamraj Ray Son of Late Soudi Singh, Resident of Village- Inpe, P.O.- Amari, P.S. and District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6582 of 2026
======================================================
Dharamraj Rai @ Dharamraj Ray Son of Late Soudi Singh, Resident of Village- Inpe, P.O.- Amari, P.S. and District- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Cabinet Secretary, Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.
The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4.
The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5.
The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jamui, District- Jamui.
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Amar Prakash, Advocate
For the State
:
Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate General
Mr. Rahul Kumar, AC to AG
======================================================
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)
14-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ application, in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to take an action on applications of the petitioner (as contained in Annexure-P/2 series) in compliance of their own orders and decisions vide memo No. 881 dated 03rd June, 2009 (as contained in Annexure-P/1) issued by the learned Principal
Secretary of the Government whereby and whereunder the respondent State authority itself made rules and guidelines with regard to the transfer and posting of the officers and other employees of the district concerned.
(ii) Further for issuance of an appropriate writ directing to the respondent authorities to take suitable action against those employees in the district of Jamui who have been staying at one place since long/more than three years.
(iii) Further for issuance of an appropriate writ directing to the respondent authorities to prepare a list of employees of the district concerned who are continuing on the same post since long and accordingly to ensure their transfer as per the Government Rule in this regard.
(iv) Further for issuance of an appropriate writ directing to the respondent authorities to constitute a high level enquiry committee on the applications of the petitioner dated 26.06.2025 (as contained in Annexure-P/2) so that the people of the District could be able to get corruption free services from the Government employees.
(v) Further for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for which the general public of the district concerned be found entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Upon perusal of the relief sought for in the writ application and the materials available on record, it appears that the matter relates to a policy decision taken by the State
Government regarding transfer and posting of concerned officials. It is well settled that the Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, does not ordinarily interfere with policy decisions of the authorities unless the same are shown to be arbitrary, illegal or in violation of statutory or constitutional provisions.
4. In the present case, no such arbitrariness or illegality has been demonstrated to warrant interference by this Court.
5. Further, a vague statement has been made in paragraph no. 4 of the writ application that the petitioner is a social worker interested in the welfare of the society. Except for this statement, there is nothing on record to show what social work the petitioner is actually involved in or to establish his locus in filing the present Public Interest Litigation.
6. The parameters laid down in Chapter XXICC of the Rules of the Patna High Court at Patna, 1916 regarding the filing of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) require that the petitioner should reveal his interest, credentials and qualification relevant for PIL. The relevant rule in this regard is reproduced hereinbelow:- “6. To facilitate the aforesaid purpose, a petitioner in a PIL shall state in clear terms the relief prayed for in paragraph-1 of the petition and grounds in paragraph-2. In paragraph-3, he must give a full and complete detail of himself to reveal his interest, credentials and qualification relevant for the PIL, alongwith a declaration that he has no personal interest, direct or indirect, in the subject matter of PIL. In addition, ordinarily, the petitioner is required to set out all relevant facts with supporting datas, reports etc.
7. After arriving at a prima facie satisfaction regarding credentials of the petitioner and correctness of the contents of the petition, if the Court finds that the petition was filed by busy bodies for extraneous or ulterior motives, the Bench may impose exemplary costs.”
7. As such, we find no reason to entertain the present writ application. Accordingly, the present writ application stands dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Sachin/- (Sudhir Singh, ACJ) (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U