Prashant Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Outcome
Disposed of
application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Judgment
... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar. The Hon'ble Chancellor, the Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna, Bihar. The Principal Secretary to Hon'ble Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna. Special Vigilance Unit, Government of Bihar through, Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar. The Vice Chancellor, Dr. Dinesh Chandra Rai, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. The Proctor, Dr. Binay Shankar Roy, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842001. The Registrar, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842001. The Examination Controller, Dr. Ram Kumar, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842001. The Inspector of Colleges Arts and Commerce, Dr. Rajeev Kumar, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842001.
The CCDC, Dr. T.K. Day, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842001.
The Nodal Officer, DDE, Dr. Satish Kumar Rai, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842001.
The Manager, Sandeep Dubey, XLICT Sofware, Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the S.V.U. For the University : : : For the Chancellor For the Respondent No. 12 : :
Mr. Purushottam Jha, Advocate Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sunil Karn, Advocate Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate Ms. Manini Jaiswal, Advocate Mr. Manas Rajdeep, Advocate Mr. Shubham Kr. Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Ritik Prakash, Advocate Ms. Aaya Pandey, Advocate Ms. Megha Rani, Advocate Patna High Court CWJC No.14433 of 2025(2) dt.04-11-2025 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 04-11-2025 Following is relief sough for in the present case:-
(I) For a Writ, direction or order, in the nature of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, direction order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the respondent Authorities to institute an enquiry by the Special Vigilance Unit with regard to the policy decisions and misuse of University funds in Crores, taken by the Respondent No. 5 in the said university, for blatant violation, committed by Respondent No. 5, of Section 10(17) of the Bihar State University Manual 1976 as well as administrative corruption, financial malpractices done by Respondent No. 5. (II) For further direction to the Respondent Authorities to take legal action under Section 11 of the University Manual against Vice Chancellor, Dr. Dinesh Chandra Rai of B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur (Respondent No. 5), for blatant violation of Section 10(17) of the Bihar State University Manual 1976, as well as administrative corruption, financial malpractice done by Respondent No. 5. (III) For direction upon the respondent authorities investigate financial illegalities/defalcation committed by the university officials in connivance with Respondent No. 5 and the investigations is required to be done under the monitoring of this Hon’ble Court as the huge amount has been defalcated by means of cheating Patna High Court CWJC No.14433 of 2025(2) dt.04-11-2025 and fraud by the top officials and there is apprehension that they can manage the investigating agencies through their power. (IV) Any other further order/direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Considering the nature of relief sought, the petitioner is permitted to make an adequate representation before Respondent No. 3, who shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
Operative part
With the aforesaid observation, the present writ application stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
It shall, however, be open to the authority concerned to examine the locus of the petitioner while considering his application/representation. (Sudhir Singh, ACJ) (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Sachin/- U
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.