BIRBAL BAGE v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
WPC/5126/2024 · 2025-07-30
Sujit Narayan Prasad
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23264 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23264 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:21378-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (PIL) No. 5126 of 2024 Birbal Bage, Aged about 64 years, Son of Jagannath Bage, Resident of Village-Tiyaposi, P.O. & P.S.- Kumardungi, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Principal Secretary, Department of Cabinet Secreteriat-cum- Commissioner of Vigilence, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, F/49, Adrey House, Kanke Road, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, District- Ranchi. 6. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S.- Lodhi Road, District- New Delhi. 7. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Kunwar Singh Colony, P.O.- Doranda, P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi Jharkhand. 8. Ranjan Singh, Director, M/S Ram Kripal Singh Construction Private Limited, 702, Panchwati Plaza, Kutchery Road, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District, Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Respondents
--------- CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Subodh Kr. Pandey, Advocate. For the UOI
: Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI. For the State
: Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III. For the CBI
: Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate. --------- 04/Dated: 30.07.2025
1. The instant W.P.(PIL) has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:-
“For issuance of an appropriate writ/Rule/order/ direction calling upon the respondents to show cause as to what actions have been taken by the respondent no. 1 to 5 in view of the complaint dated 04.12.2023 filed by the petitioner. AND/OR For issuance of a writ/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to lodge FIR against the respondent no. 8 along with other persons/officials who are found involved in commission of embezzlement of public money. AND/OR To direct the respondent no. 6 and 7 to lodge a case and thoroughly investigate the matter regarding the scam
2025:JHHC:21378-DB
committed by the respondent no. 8 along with other persons/officials found involved in the commission embezzlement of public money.”
2.
Clearly, this W.P. (PIL) is totally misconceived as there is no law under which the respondents are obliged to answer to the contents of the complaint that was lodged by the petitioner on 04.12.2023. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by some action of the respondents then its remedy lies elsewhere and not by way of the instant writ petition. 3. Consequently, the instant W.P. (PIL) stands dismissed in limine. Pending Application, if any, stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) APK/VK