Patna High Court - Orders
Bharat Kumar Sharma, vs The State Of Bihar on 17 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9935 of 2025
======================================================
Bharat Kumar Sharma, Son of Sh. Dineshwar Prasad Vishwakarma, resident
of near Arya Samaj Mandir, Purani Chowk, Post Office Haweli Kharagpur,
P.S. Haweli Kharagpur District Munger, Bihar, PIN 811213 working as
Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board at Parivesh Bhawan,
CBD-Cum-Office Complex, East Arjun Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through The Chief Secretary, Patna, Bihar.
2. The General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
through its Additional Chief Secretary.
3. The Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna, Bihar.
4. Central Pollution Control Board, through The Chairman, Parivesh Bhawan,
CBD-cum-Office Complex, East Arjun Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Kanupriya, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate
Ms. Aastha Prakash, Advocate
For the Intervener : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Akash Raj, Advocate
Ms. Nikita Mittal, Advocate
For the State : Dr. Raisul Haque, SC-10
For the Respondent No. 4: Ms. Binita Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV ORDER
5 17-02-2026I. A. No. 4 of 2025 Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 2/16
1. The present Interlocutory Application is filed by one Ms. Priya Das, praying that she be impleaded as an intervener in the present writ petition. The factual aspects of the application, as averred by the applicant, are as follows:
The applicant describes herself as a public-spirited individual and social worker, serving as the Patron of the Tribal Social Welfare Trust, a registered public charitable organization focused on the upliftment and protection of the rights of Scheduled Tribes across India. She claims to have initiated multiple complaints and representations regarding the petitioner's alleged fraudulent use of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) caste certificate to secure employment and subsequent benefits in the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), including his initial appointment as Assistant Environmental Engineer in 1997 and his later role as Member Secretary in 2023. These complaints were lodged with bodies such as the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Prime Minister's Office (PMO), and the General Administration Department (GAD), Bihar, between 2023 and 2025, allegedly leading to the caste verification proceedings challenged in the main writ petition. The applicant asserts that the petitioner's caste certificate, declaring him as Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 3/16 belonging to the "Lohar" caste under ST, was provisional and invalidated by Bihar Government Circular No. 43 dated 23.03.1996, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar, (1996) 3 SCC 576, yet he continued to avail benefits. She highlights her role in pursuing these complaints, including appearances before NCST and representations to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), and argues that her intervention is necessary in public interest to safeguard ST rights from misuse.
Additionally, she raises concerns about a conflict of interest due to the petitioner's position as Member Secretary of CPCB (arrayed as a respondent) and the writ petitioner, invoking the principle of nemo judex in causa sua, and seeks to ensure impartiality in the proceedings.
2. Based on the factual aspects averred in the application and the prevailing law, the applicant cannot be impleaded as a party for the following reasons:
The dispute, as emerges from the applicant's own averments, is confined to the verification of an individual's personal caste certificate in the context of his employment with a Central Government organization. This is quintessentially a private dispute between the concerned individual and the Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 4/16 administrative authorities responsible for verification. It raises no broader question regarding the inclusion or exclusion of any community in the Scheduled Tribe list, nor does it challenge or seek reform of the reservation policy framework. The applicant, while styling herself as a social worker and trustee of an organization dedicated to ST welfare, remains a third-party stranger to this individualized inquiry, suffering no direct, tangible, or personal legal injury that would warrant her inclusion as a party.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that locus standi is a sine qua non for intervention. In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 9 has categorically observed as hereunder:
"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law..."
4. Further, in paragraph no. 18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person claiming to act in the interest of a Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 5/16 protected category must still demonstrate legitimate standing, and a mere ideological or generalized concern is insufficient. Paragraph no. 18 of the judgement is reproduced hereinbelow:
"18. As Respondent 5 does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category, the garb adopted by him, of serving the cause of Scheduled Tribe candidates who might have been deprived of their legitimate right to be considered for the post, must be considered by this Court in order to determine whether Respondent 5, is in fact, in a legitimate position to lay any claim before any forum, whatsoever."
5. The applicant's repeated complaints, even if assumed to have prompted administrative action, do not confer upon her the status of an "aggrieved person" with enforceable rights in the ensuing judicial proceedings.
6. The invocation of public interest by the applicant does not elevate this matter to the realm of public interest litigation (PIL) or justify third-party intervention. The averments disclose no systemic failure, widespread misuse of reservation benefits, or violation of public policy affecting an identifiable class of persons. Rather, the focus remains on one individual's alleged misrepresentation for personal gain in employment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 6/16
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, reported in (1981) Supp SCC 87, while liberalizing locus standi for genuine public causes, emphasized that relaxation is permissible only where there is a violation of Constitutional Rights or Public Interest is at stake, and even then, the petitioner must act bona fide without ulterior motive. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 17 of the said judgement has held as follows:
"17. It may therefore now be taken as well established that where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226. ... But we Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 7/16 must hasten to make it clear that the individual who moves the court for judicial redress in cases of this kind must be acting bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice and if he is acting for personal gain or private profit or out of political motivation or other oblique consideration, the court should not allow itself to be activised at the instance of such person and must reject his application at the threshold, whether it be in the form of a letter addressed to the court or even in the form of a regular writ petition filed in court."
8. Similarly, in the case of Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against misuse and in paragraph no. 64 has held as follows:
"64. In contrast, the strict rule of locus standi applicable to private litigation is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives the right of locus standi to any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in instituting an action for redressal of public wrong or public injury, but who is not a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper; since the dominant object of Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 8/16 PIL is to ensure observance of the provisions of the Constitution or the law which can be best achieved to advance the cause of community or disadvantaged groups and individuals or public interest by permitting any person, having no personal gain or private motivation or any other oblique consideration but acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury to put the judicial machinery in motion like actio popularis of Roman Law whereby any citizen could bring such an action in respect of a public delict."
9. The applicant's detailed narration of her serial complaints and self-assigned role as a watchdog, while portraying zeal, reveals a targeted campaign against a single individual rather than a broad public cause, rendering her claim of public interest untenable.
10. The mere fact that the applicant initiated complaints leading to the verification proceedings does not entitle her to party status in subsequent judicial review. Administrative inquiries into caste certificates, governed by guidelines in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 71, are quasi-judicial Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 9/16 processes between the certificate holder and the designated authorities; complainants are informants, not necessary parties. This principle finds support in R. Gurusamy v. District Collector, reported in 1998 SCC OnLine Mad 809. The relevant paragraph of the judgement is reproduced hereinbelow:
16. ... In other words, it is to be considered whether respondents 1 and 2 are justified in making merely on the basis of a complaint made by a third party, who is admittedly not an employer.
As a matter of fact, the employer namely respondents 3 and 4 have no grievance with regard to the community status of the petitioner. For the sake of repetition, it is clear that they did not send any request either to the District Collector or to the Revenue Divisional Officer for verification of the community status of the petitioner. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Sakthi Devi, S.P. v.
Collector of Salem [(1985) 98 M.L.W. 105]. In this decision, after analysing the various aspects, their Lordships have issued seven directions, out of which directions 3, 5 and 7 are relevant for this case and the same are extracted as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 10/16 "3. In no disciplinary proceedings, their genuineness or correctness of their contents can be gone into. In it open to the department or employer or organisation, to ask the issuing authority or District Collector, as the case may be, to verify whether the certificate as issued could be still valid, on materials which have since come to their knowledge. They can appear in the verification enquiry and place the materials.
4. xxx
5. Appointing authorities have the right to verify the genuineness of the certificates by approaching the District Magistrate-Collector of the district or such other constituted authority and once the report is received that the certificate is genuine, thereafter the certificate holder cannot be further harassed to prove his caste/community in any other manner.
6. xxx
7. In view of what is stated in Chap. 14 of Brochure on Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Services 6th Edn. (1982), the instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time relating, to Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 11/16 scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, pertaining to issue of caste certificates are binding upon public sector undertakings, statutory and semi-
Government bodies and voluntary agencies receiving grant-in-aid from the Central Government, as provided therein."
The above mentioned conclusion of the Division Bench makes it clear that it is open to the issuing authority or the District Collector as the case may be, to verify whether the certificate as issued could be still valid.
Likewise, the appointing authorities have the right to verify the genuineness of the certificates by approaching the District Collector or such other constituted authority. Except the above mentioned categories of persons, it is not open to the authorities to verify the community status of the person concerned merely on the basis of a complaint received from third parties. I have already observed that in the case on hand, the employer, viz., respondents 3 and 4 did not send any request for verification of the community certificate obtained by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the verification and the enquiry initiated by respondents 1 and Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 12/16 2 merely on the basis of a complaint made by one Vellaiyan, a co-worker of the petitioner cannot be sustained. As a matter of fact, in a dispute between the holder of the community certificate and his employer, a Division Bench of this Court in R. Nirmala v. Reserve Bank of India [W.P. No. 10292 of 1989, dated 18 June 1998], has dismissed the plea of scheduled castes uplift union for being impleaded as parties to the said proceedings. When the scheduled caste association or union which are connected with the uplift of the scheduled caste people themselves are not permitted to participate in the proceedings, it is not open to the constituted authorities to enquire into the genuineness or status of community certificate issued already merely on the basis of complaints from third parties. Accordingly, the entire proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 merely on the basis of the complaint of one Vellaiyan, a co-worker of the petitioner, without any request of requisition from the employer or genuine doubt in the minds of the constituted authorities are liable to be quashed. ...
11. By analogy, a third-party complainant cannot Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 13/16 subsequently demand impleadment in challenges to such verification, as it would undermine the limited scope of these proceedings and invite multiplicity of litigation.
12. The power under Order I Rule 10 CPC is discretionary and strictly circumscribed, as laid down in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524. Paragraph no. 6 of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced hereinbelow:
"6. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 14/16 view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case."
13. The applicant's averments fail to demonstrate indispensability. The questions of administrative jurisdiction and validity can be fully resolved on existing records without her input. Her concerns regarding conflict of interest (nemo judex in causa sua) pertain to internal governance of CPCB/MoEFCC and do not necessitate her presence for adjudication.
14. Permitting such impleadment would set an undesirable precedent, encouraging habitual complainants to escalate administrative grievances into judicial forums as parties, thereby burdening courts and delaying resolution of individual disputes.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402, issued guidelines to curb misuse of PIL/interventions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 143 of the said judgement held as follows: -
"143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 15/16 petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non- monetary directions by the courts. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:
The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations." ...
16. While the applicant avers bona fides through her organizational affiliation, the pattern of persistent, individualized complaints (spanning multiple forums over years) suggests motives beyond pure public interest, warranting judicial restraint.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 16/16
17. For the reasons, stated above, the Interlocutory Application is dismissed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J) skm/-
U