Patna High Court Weekly Roundup: April 22 - 27, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat)36 To 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 40

NOMINAL INDEX

Amit Anand vs Bihar Information Commission and Others 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 36

Nitu Chandra vs The Union of India and ors 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 37

Pratik Shail @ Pratik Sail v. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 38

Anil Kumar Singh v. The Union of India and Others 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 39

Ramesh Mahto and ors vs The State of Bihar. and ors 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 40

Orders/Judgements

S.19(8)(b) RTI Act | No Compensation Can Be Granted Unless Actual Loss Or Detriment Due To Delayed Information Shown: Patna High Court

Case Title: Amit Anand vs Bihar Information Commission and Others

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 36

While dismissing a petition filed by an individual seeking compensation for delayed information under the Right to Information Act 2005, the Patna High Court has reiterated that compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act can only be granted when the applicant demonstrates actual loss or detriment suffered due to the delay in receiving the requested information.

Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma presiding over the case observed, “this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not produced/demonstrated the extent of loss or detriment suffered by him for award of compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 and apart from that, the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 16.08.2019 by which the appeal of the petitioner was disposed of by the State Information Commission without awarding the compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

'Approach Grievance Cell Under IT Rules 2021': Patna HC Dismisses Actress Nitu Chandra's Plea Against Honey Singh's Song

Case Title: Nitu Chandra vs The Union of India and ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 37

While dismissing a petition filed by actress Nitu Chandra challenging the broadcast and online circulation of an allegedly vulgar song by singer Honey Singh, the Patna High Court has directed that such grievances must first be addressed through the statutory mechanism established under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed in its judgement, “Mr. Alok Kumar, the learned Advocate for the Central Government has drawn the attention of this Court to various provisions in the IT Act and the Ethics Code Rules, 2021 including the redressal mechanism provided therein for any party to approach the concerned authorities for the needful, i.e. for stoppage of broadcast of such vulgar songs.”

Patna High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Suspended Judge In Dowry Death Case, Orders CBI Probe

Case Title: Pratik Shail @ Pratik Sail v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 38

The Patna High Court recently declined to quash the criminal case filed against a suspended judicial officer in the cadre of Bihar Judicial Service regarding the alleged dowry death of his wife, observing that there exist prima facie materials pointing to the harassment and cruelty related to dowry demands.

The Court also ordered that the investigation in the case be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) citing the 'very technical nature' of the case.

Finance Act, 1994 | Mere Non-Registration Under Service Tax Isn't Fraud Or Suppression To Justify 5 Year Limitation: Patna High Court

Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh v. The Union of India and Others

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 39

The Patna High Court has recently quashed a service tax demand raised against a government contractor, ruling that merely not registering for service tax could not be equated with fraud or suppression of facts warranting the application of the five-year extended limitation period under the Finance Act, 1994.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey, observed, “the plea of the respondent that the petitioner had not taken registration of the service tax would alone not be a reason to believe that he has committed a fraud or has wilfully suppressed his liability to pay the tax. Rule 4A casts a duty upon every person providing taxable service (not later than thirty days from the date of completion of such taxable service whichever is earlier to issue an invoice, a bill or as the case may be a challan signed by such person or a person authorised by him in respect of such taxable service provided or agreed to be provided.”

Letters Withheld Despite Orders: Patna HC Orders Issuance Of Appointment Letters To Panchayat Teachers After 16 Years

Case Title: Ramesh Mahto and ors vs The State of Bihar. and ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 40

Noting the continued failure of the Employment Unit under the Panchayat Raj Bhorah, District Saran at Chapra to issue appointment letters to candidates selected for the post of Panchayat Teacher in 2009 despite multiple judicial directions, the Patna High Court has directed the District Education Officer and the District Programme Officer (Establishment) to collect service particulars from the Employment Unit and take appropriate action to comply with the appointment orders passed earlier by the District Appellate Authority and later modified by the State Appellate Authority.

Justice Purnendu Singh, presiding over the case, stated, “I have no alternative than to direct the District Education Officer and the District Programme Officer (Establishment) concerned to call for the service particulars relating to the petitioners from the Employment Unit and take appropriate action to comply with the order passed by the District Appellate Authority and as modified by the State Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.12.2020 which requires issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners.”