Patna: The Patna High Court witnessed a tense exchange on Thursday during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation concerning the Bihar Judicial Academy, with the bench questioning the state government’s submissions and the lack of supporting records.
The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma directed the secretaries of the Road Construction Department, Forest Department, and Urban Development and Housing Department to appear personally before the court on Friday, September 11, at 10:30 am.
The three officials have been asked to come with an integrated action plan and a clear timeline for carrying out the pending work.
Court questions missing affidavit
The sharp exchanges followed submissions by Additional Advocate General 3 P.K. Verma, who told the court that an affidavit concerning development of the area beneath the Mahatma Gandhi Setu had been filed by the National Highway Division.
When the bench asked him to verify the record, however, no such affidavit could be found in the case file despite a search.
The court objected to arguments being advanced without supporting documents in a matter concerning the Judicial Academy and the administration of justice. Following the exchange, Advocate General S.D. Sanjay recused himself from the case.
The court expressed concern over the circumstances, observing that it was unfortunate that submissions were being made without an affidavit in such a sensitive PIL and that the claims could not be substantiated when the records were checked.
Earlier deadline not met
The court also referred to an order dated June 3, 2026, in which the state had assured it that fencing and plantation work beneath the Mahatma Gandhi Setu would be completed by June 30.
The court noted that the commitment has not yet been fulfilled.
An affidavit filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Patna Park Division, stated that a proposal for developing a park at the site from which encroachments had been removed had been submitted to the Urban Development and Housing Department. The proposal seeks administrative approval and funds for the project.
The Road Construction Department, meanwhile, informed the court that a fresh tender had been issued for construction of the boundary wall and that the work would be completed within two months.
Petitioner flags gaps
Advocate Piyush Lal, appearing for the petitioner, the Bihar Judicial Academy, told the court that the affidavits filed by the state departments dealt only with the northern wall.
According to the petitioner’s submission, there was no concrete response concerning development of the eastern section or the area beneath the Mahatma Gandhi Setu.
The court emphasised that the proceedings were not adversarial litigation but were intended to improve the security and environment surrounding the administration of justice.
Expressing concern over non-compliance with its earlier directions and what it described as a lack of coordination between departments, the court ordered the three secretaries to appear personally on Friday morning.
They have been directed to present a coordinated action plan and specify timelines for completing the pending works.
