Important Judgments of Patna High Court (2024) - Legal Bites Year Update

Legal Bites brings you a roundup of Important decisions of the Patna High Court (2024), which played a significant role. It will help the readers to remember all legal and current updates of 2024 pertaining to the Patna High Court in the most efficient and easy way.

Important Judgments of Patna High Court (2024) - Legal Bites Year Update

1) Challenge to Eligibility Criteria for Drug Inspector Post

In Mannu Kumar v. State of Bihar (2024), the petitioner challenged his ineligibility for the post of Drug Inspector under Advertisement No. 09 of 2022, citing that his Pharm D degree should qualify under Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The court upheld the Bihar Public Service Commission's interpretation that Pharm D is not equivalent to the prescribed qualifications, which include a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Sciences. It ruled that a higher qualification does not imply possession of a lower one, and eligibility must align strictly with statutory rules and recruitment criteria. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

2) Entitlement to House Rent Allowance Despite Non-Occupation of Allotted Government Quarter

In the matter of Dr. Raj Kumar Sah v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2024), the petitioner, an Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist at Veer Kunwar Singh College of Agriculture, challenged the denial of House Rent Allowance (HRA) after being allotted a government quarter he never occupied. Initially, the college authorities allotted the quarter and stopped HRA payments, asserting that the petitioner could not claim HRA while government accommodation was available, even if unoccupied.

However, the petitioner contended that he never accepted or resided in the allotted quarter and was entitled to HRA from the beginning. After deliberation, the court found the respondents' stance self-contradictory, as they eventually granted HRA until August 2019 while withholding earlier dues. The High Court directed the respondents to pay the deducted HRA from January to August 2019 within three months, emphasizing that the petitioner was entitled to the allowance due to the non-occupation of the quarter. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

3) High Court Upholds Acquittal in Dowry Death Case Due to Insufficient Evidence

In the case of Ram Lal @ Ram Lal Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2024), the Patna High Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of two accused (R-2 and R-3) by the trial court in connection with the alleged dowry-related murder of Divya Singh. The prosecution alleged that the accused burned the victim alive for dowry demands, supported by a disputed dying declaration. The trial court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies, procedural lapses in recording the dying declaration, and insufficient evidence to establish the chain of events conclusively.

The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the lack of credible evidence and the failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby reaffirming the acquittal.

4) Denial of Service Regularization Due to Unauthorized Appointment

In Yugal Kishore Prasad Gupta v. B.N. Mandal University & Ors. (2024), the petitioner sought regularization of his service as an Account Assistant at Purnea College, claiming continuous engagement since 1986 and citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi. However, the Patna High Court dismissed the writ, holding that the petitioner’s engagement was unauthorized, made without advertisement, and not through a competent authority or due process. The Court reiterated that regularization under Uma Devi applies only to appointees against sanctioned posts through lawful recruitment processes. Despite earlier rejections of similar pleas, the petitioner repeatedly filed representations, all of which lacked merit and were lawfully denied.

5) Patna High Court Upholds Statutory Remedy in Public Demand Recovery Case

In the case M/s Maa Sita Rice Mill Ajgeba Sour Bajar v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2024), the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a distress warrant issued under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, for recovery of ₹75,03,103/- on procedural grounds. The Court ruled that the writ application was not maintainable since statutory remedies, including objections under Section 9 and subsequent appeals or revisions under Sections 60 and 62, were available to the petitioner.

However, the Court granted the petitioner a one-month reprieve from coercive measures, directing them to appear before the Certificate Officer, Saharsa, and file objections. Failure to comply within this timeframe would permit the Certificate Officer to proceed with lawful actions.

6) High Court Quashes Cognizance in Tax Evasion and Explosives Case

In Pawan Kumar Rajgarhia & Anr. v. State of Bihar (2024), the Patna High Court quashed the cognizance order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah, in connection with Arrah (Town) P.S. Case No. 470 of 2014. The petitioners, the director and godown in charge of a transport agency, were accused of aiding tax evasion under Section 81(4) of the Bihar VAT Act, 2005, and unlawful possession under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

The Court held that the cognizance order was legally untenable due to the absence of mandatory sanction under Section 82(2) of the BVAT Act and insufficient evidence to establish prima facie violations under both statutes. Furthermore, penalties for the goods in question had been paid, and the prosecution failed to show that the crackers involved were stored unlawfully. Relying on principles from Bhajan Lal and Sushil Sethi, the Court found the proceedings unsustainable and allowed the petition.

7) Fresh Measurement Plea Rejected in Danapur Land Encroachment Case

In Divya Kumari & Ors. v. Jugeshwar Nath Srivastava (2024), the Patna High Court dismissed a petition seeking scientific measurement of disputed land under Order 26 Rule 10A of the CPC, affirming the appellate court's rejection in Title Appeal No. 79/2019. The court held that prior reports by the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner and Government Amin sufficed, and objections to evidence must be raised during the trial. It directed the appellate court to expedite the appeal while refraining from addressing allegations of fraud, leaving them for the appropriate forum.

8) Violation of Natural Justice in Departmental Inquiry

In Ravi Ranjan v. Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (2024), the Patna High Court set aside the dismissal order dated 31.12.2018 and the appellate order dated 20.09.2019 on grounds of violation of natural justice, as the petitioner, a bank officer, was not provided with specific documents crucial to his defence in the departmental inquiry. Despite multiple requests, the bank failed to supply the required documents, leading to an unfair proceeding. The court, citing precedents from State of U.P. v. Rajit Singh (2022) and Chandradeep Sinha v. State of Bihar (2000), held that denying access to relevant documents constitutes a serious procedural lapse.

The court allowed the bank to resume the inquiry from the stage it was vitiated, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice and completing the process within six months.