Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh

Early Life and Education1

Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh was born on 20-01-1963. His formative years were spent in diligent pursuit of education, marked by a schooling journey that nurtured his intellectual curiosity and dedication. Upon completing his early education, Justice Chakradhari Singh pursued higher studies, obtaining his LL.B. Degree from the esteemed University of Delhi, Campus Law Centre. This educational journey laid the groundwork for his illustrious career in the legal realm, where his unwavering commitment to the principles of justice and fairness continues to shine brightly.

Career Trajectory2

As an Advocate

Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh’s journey as an advocate was characterized by unwavering dedication and a commitment to upholding the principles of justice. After being enrolled as an advocate on 30-10-1990, he swiftly rose through the ranks, showcasing his legal prowess and proficiency. His tenure saw him serve as Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government and later as Additional Advocate General for the Government of Bihar.

Throughout his practice, Justice Chakradhari Singh specialized in various legal domains, including service, Constitutional, and Criminal matters. He was appointed as Panel Counsel by Comptroller and Auditor General of India for conducting cases on behalf of Accountant General Office in Patna High Court. In a testament to his versatility, Justice Chakradhari Singh received training as mediator in 2006 and was appointed mediator for Patna High Court Mediation Centre.

Justice Chakradhari Singh’s legal expertise received further recognition when he was designated as a Senior Advocate in September 2010, thereby solidifying his reputation in the legal fraternity.

As a Judge

In 05-04-2012, his journey took a monumental turn as he was elevated to the esteemed position of an Additional Judge at the Patna High Court, a role in which he continued to exemplify integrity, wisdom, and a steadfast commitment to justice. Over the years, his dedication and contributions to the legal field earned him the honor of assuming the charge as Acting Chief Justice of the Patna High Court in February 2023, a testament to his remarkable journey from advocate to esteemed jurist.

The Supreme Court Collegium vide resolution dated 02-11-20233 recommended Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh as the 34th Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, which was approved by the President of India on 02-02-2024 and he was sworn in on 07-02-2024.4

The Supreme Court Collegium while recommending Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh as Chief Justice, stated5“It is proposed to appoint Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa. He has maintained high standards of professional ethics at the Bar and Bench and enjoys good reputation for conduct and integrity. While recommending the name of Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, the Collegium has also taken into consideration the fact that at present the High Court of Judicature at Patna has no representation among the Chief Justices of High Courts.”

Did you know? During his tenure as Judge of the Patna High Court, Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh authored around 1246 reported judgments of which 562 were delivered during last 5 years.6

Important Judgments by Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh7

A compilation of significant judgments authored by Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, showcasing his profound impact and contributions to the legal landscape.

Orissa High Court

No recovery of excess payment from employee’s leave encashment benefit after retirement in case payment was made due to employer’s fault: Orissa High Court

In a civil writ petition, the Division Bench of Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ., and S.K. Sahoo*, J. answered the issue that whether excess payment made in favour of an employee can be recovered from his leave encashment benefits after his retirement, in negative. Read More..

[Union of India v. Md. Ahmed Baig, 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 990]

Patna High Court

5-Judge Bench of Patna HC directs to demolish entire building of newly erected Waqf Bhawan constructed in close proximity of Centenary Building of the HC; Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah dissents

A Special 5-Judges Bench comprising of Ashwani Kumar Singh, Vikash Jain, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Rajendra Kumar Mishra and Chakradhari Sharan Singh, JJ., had by the majority of 4:1, directed to demolish the entire building of newly erected Waqf Bhawan which was constructed in close proximity of the northern side of the newly inaugurated Centenary Building of the Patna High Court.

The Court opined. “The structure has been constructed in utter and brazen violation of provisions of law across statutes, starting from Section 32 of the Central Act, through the various provisions of the Municipal Act, and finally Bye-law 21, as discussed above, and must be held to be illegal and non-est from the word go.”

[Suo Motu cognizance taken by the Court vide order dated 01-03-2021 of a structure on the north side adjacent to the Centenary Building of the Patna High Court which came up during Covid-19 Pandemic, In Re., 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 1633]

Patna High Court clarifies Revenue Officers’ Revision Powers under Bihar Tenancy Act; Overrules Ram Kishun Mandal Case

The petition was initiated due to doubts raised regarding the correctness of a prior judgment in the case of Ram Kishun Mandal v. The State of Bihar, 1987 SCC OnLine Pat 9, which questioned whether Revenue Officers under the Bihar Tenancy Act possessed the inherent power to review their own decisions until the final publication of the record of rights. The earlier judgment had concluded that no such inherent power existed. A full bench of Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ., and Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Ashutosh Kumar, Sudhir Singh and Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, JJ., rejected the minority view and upheld the interpretation that the Legislature’s intentional use of the term “revise” conferred upon Revenue Officers the authority to re-examine and correct decisions as the legislative amendment in 1963 aimed to clarify these powers and provide a mechanism for resolving disputes regarding land tenures. Consequently, the judgment overruled the earlier decision in the Ram Kishun Mandal case, stating that it had misinterpreted the law.

[Nand Kumar Thankur v State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 3389]

Patna High Court upholds necessity of enquiry for land transfers under Bihar Land Reforms Act

The petition in question was filed in response to doubts raised regarding the correctness of certain observations made in the decision of the Deosagar Singh v State, 1979 SCC OnLine Pat 38 case stemming from a disagreement over the interpretation of provisions concerning land transfer under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. The petitioner sought clarification on the necessity of an enquiry under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act for land transfers falling under Section 5(1)(ii), especially in cases where transfers were made after September 9, 1970. A Full Bench of Amreshwar Pratap Singh, CJ., Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Sudhir Singh, JJ., reaffirmed the interpretation laid out in the Deosagar Singh case, emphasizing the need to consider the Act as a whole and to understand both its literal meaning and its underlying purpose. The court held that an enquiry by the Collector under Section 5(1)(iii) is indeed necessary for land transfers falling under Section 5(1)(ii), even if the transfers occurred after September 9, 1970. It underscored the importance of this enquiry in determining the admissible ceiling area of the landholder and ensuring compliance with the Act’s objectives of equitable land distribution. Thus, the court upheld the observations made in the Deosagar Singh case as valid and applicable to the present context.

[Mohan Pathak v Board of Revenue, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 3354]

Patna High Court upholds prior sanction mandate for prosecuting Bihar police officers

The petition seeking to quash an order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Muzaffarpur, Bihar, on 01-04-1991, which took cognizance of several offences under the Penal Code against the petitioner, who was serving as the Officer-in-Charge of a Government Rail Police Station relying on a notification dated 16-05-1980, issued by the Government of Bihar, contending that prior sanction from the State Government was necessary before any court could take cognizance of offences allegedly committed by members of the Bihar Police Force while discharging their official duties. The petitioner sought to quash the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order on failure to obtain prior sanction. A Full Bench of I A Ansari, Navaniti Prasad Singh and Chakradhari Sharan Singh, JJ., upheld the validity of the Bihar government’s notification issued under Section 197(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and deemed the order taking cognizance and issuing summonses by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as erroneous due to non-compliance with the sanction requirement. Thus, the Court allowed the petitioner’s application, quashing the said orders and emphasizing the necessity of prior sanction for prosecuting police officers for alleged offences committed during their official duties.

[Ram Rekha Pandey v State of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 2130]

Patna High Court upholds denial of divorce on failure to prove allegations of desertion

The appellant, who is the husband of the respondent, filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He alleged that his wife deserted him and their attempts at reconciliation failed, resulting in 24 years of living separately. The wife, in her defense, denied desertion, claiming she was ousted from her marital home due to dowry demands and had lodged a police report regarding the matter. She also alleged the husband’s remarriage. A Division bench of I A Ansari and Chakradhari Sharan Singh, JJ., held that the wife had been forcibly ousted from her matrimonial home by the husband, leading to her living separately for 24 years. Thus, the Court concluded that the husband failed to prove desertion by the wife and upheld the lower court’s decision to deny dissolution of marriage. The appellate court found no merit in the husband’s appeal and dismissed it, ordering him to pay costs to the wife.

[[Bhola Kumari v Seema Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine Pat 3362]

Patna High Court upholds superintendent’s jurisdiction in imposing penalty under Bihar Excise Act

The petitioner’s liquor shop was raided, leading to the discovery of irregularities. The Superintendent of Excise, Lakhisarai, subsequently imposed a fine of Rs. 51,000 for these breaches, prompting the petitioner to file a petition challenging this penalty. The petitioner contested the legality of the Superintendent’s actions, arguing that they had exceeded their jurisdiction in imposing the fine. A Division Bench of I.A. Ansari, CJ., and Chakradhari Sharan Singh, JJ., quashed the Collector’s order and directed the restoration of the petitioner’s license based on the relevant statutory provisions under the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, particularly Section 42, which grants the authority to cancel, suspend, or impose penalties for breaches of license conditions. Thus, the Court concluded that the Superintendent of Excise, being the authority that granted the license, had jurisdiction to impose the penalty. Consequently, the Collector’s subsequent order canceling the license was deemed to be beyond their jurisdiction.

[Ashok Sah v State of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 2504]

Patna High Court mandates prompt action by authorities against public nuisances and encroachments

The present petition was filed due to the failure of authorities to address the establishment of a poultry farm on public land adjacent to a newly created primary school in Panchbhirba, Nuniya Tola, Sangrampur. The petitioner, who is the headmaster of the school, expressed concern that the poultry farm and other encroachments pose a threat to the health and hygiene of the students and teachers. Despite previous complaints and efforts, including a local inspection and measurements done by the Anchal Amin, the encroachments were not removed, leading to the filing of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of I.A. Ansari, CJ., and Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J., held that the failure to address the encroachments and public nuisance violated the provisions of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 emphasizing the duty of District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates, and Executive Magistrates to promptly issue conditional orders for the removal of obstructions or nuisances upon receiving reports or other information. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the implementation of its previous general directions issued in a similar case and directed the respondents to strictly adhere to these directions to ensure the removal of encroachments and public nuisances.

[Narendra Ram v State of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 5456]

Patna High Court upholds interstate trade balance by interpreting an amendment to the VAT Act to prevent double taxation

The petition in the case stemmed from the imposition of additional tax under Section 3AA of the Bihar VAT Act, 2005, on the petitioner, a dealer distributing food grains, due to their gross turnover exceeding a specified threshold. This additional tax was applied to purchases of paddy, rice, and wheat, leading the petitioner to challenge the legality of the tax burden, particularly concerning its impact on the sale of rice produced from taxed paddy within Bihar. A Division Bench of I.A. Ansari, ACJ., and Chakradhari Sharan Singh, JJ., held that while the additional tax under Section 3AA constituted an enhancement of the sales tax rate for dealers with high turnovers, it also recognized that such taxes should not unduly burden transactions involving declared goods like paddy and rice. Therefore, to reconcile the Bihar VAT Act with constitutional and interstate trade considerations, the court interpreted Section 16 of the Act to allow input tax credit not only for the base sales tax but also for the additional tax imposed on the purchase of paddy.

[Food Corporation of India v State of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 9233]

Patna High Court mandates prompt removal of encroachments from Patna University premises

The petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought the removal of illegal encroachments from the premises of Patna University, Patna. The initial order, issued on 11-05-2015, directed the eviction of encroachers within 15 days. However, subsequent disputes arose regarding the rights of certain individuals claiming occupancy of specific premises, leading to modifications in the court’s directives. A Division Bench of I. A. Ansari, ACJ., and Chakradhari Sharan Singh, JJ., held that disputes over occupancy rights should be addressed in civil court, not in the present public interest litigation. It directed the vacation of unauthorized premises within one month, including hostels occupied by unauthorized individuals. Moreover, it mandated disciplinary action against officials failing to promptly enforce the removal of encroachments.

[Vikash Chandra Guddu Baba v State of Bihar, 2015 SCC OnLine Pat 7127]

1. Patna High Court

2. Supra

3. Supreme Court Collegium Resolution

4. Justice Chakradhari Singh sworn in as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court; Business Standard; Chief Justice | Orissa High Court, Cuttack

5. Supreme Court Collegium Resolution

6. Supra

7. SCC Online

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.