Patna High Court
Harendra Pratap Singh,Advocate vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 19 August, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19142 of 2010
======================================================
HARENDRA PRATAP SINGH,ADVOCATE S/O Sri Brahma Dayal Singh,
'Freedom Fighter' R/O Vill.- Narbirpur, Panchayat-Narbirpur, Proposed Block
Narbirpur, Police Station- Koelwar, Distt.- Bhojpur Arrah, Proposed Division-
Shahabad Arrah Present Address-2a, Kamla Apartment, Kavi Raman Path,
Purbee Boring Road, Patna Near Ex-Chief Minister Late Satyendra Narayan
Sinha And Practicing As An Advocate A Member Of Advocates Association,
Advocates' House, Patna High Court, Patna, in the State of Bihar (In person)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR and ORS Old Secretariat, Patna
2. The Chief Secretary, Got. Of Bihar Old Secretariat, Patna
3. The Principal Secretary, The Department Of Cabinet Secretariat Govt. Of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
4. The Pricipal Secretary General Administrative, Department Govt. Of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna
5. The Principal Secretary, The Department Of Home Null Govt. Of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna
6. The Principal Secretary, The Department Of Parliamentary Work Govt. Of
Bihar, Patna
7. The Prinipal Secretary, The Department Of Finance Govt. Of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna
8. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Govt.
Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan,Patna
9. The Pricipal Secretary, Governor Secretariat Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
10. The Joint Secretary, Governor Secretariat, Bihar, Patna
11. The Principal Secretary, Chief Master Secretariat, Bihar, Patna
12. The Joint Secretary, Chief Minister Secretariat, Bihar, Patna
13. The Union Of India Through The Secretary Of Ministry Of Home Affairs
Govt. Of India, New Delhi
14. The Secretary Of Ministry Of Home Affairs Govt, Of India, New Delhi
15. The Secretary, Department Of Law, Justice And Company Affairs In The
Department Of Legal Affairs Govt. Of India, New Delhi
16. The Secretary Of Ministry Of Planning And Parliamentary Affairs Govt. Of
India, New Delhi
17. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, In The State Of Bihar Patna
18. The Registrar List And Computer, Patna High Court, In The State Of Bihar,
Patna
19. The Secretary Of Legislative Assemblies In The State Of Bihar, Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.19142 of 2010 dt.19-08-2025
2/7
20. The Deputy Secretary Of Legislative Assemblies In The State Of Bihar,
Patna
21. The Secretary Of Legislative Council, In The State Of Bihar, Patna
22. The Deputy Secretary Of Legislative Council In The State Of Bihar, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harendra Pratap Singh
For the State : Mr. AAG-9
For the Resp. No. 17 & 18 (PHC) : Mrs. Anukrit Jaipuriyar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-08-2025
Heard, the petitioner (in person), learned counsel
for the Respondent No. 17 & 18 (Patna High Court) and learned
counsel for the State. However, no one appears on behalf of the
Union of India.
2. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that
Order No. 2 dated 24.11.2010 is highly relevant, which reads as
follows:-
"The petitioner, a practising
Advocate of this Court, has a complaint
against the State of Bihar and its officers for
not using National Emblem on the official
stationery and for coining a separate State
emblem.
The matter can hardly be a
matter of concern for the public in general.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19142 of 2010 dt.19-08-2025
3/7
Let the matter be listed before
the learned single Judge taking up
miscellaneous writ petitions.
The petitioner will amend the
cause title accordingly."
3. He further submits that Order No. 4 dated
10.01.2019
is also of significant relevance, which reads as
follows:-
"Heard.
Admit.
Since the parties have already
entered appearance, no fresh notice is
required to be issued."
4. The petitioner (in person) submits that the
present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondents, Principal Secretaries, Secretaries, Heads of
Departmental Commissioners, the District Magistrate-cum-
Collector, and officers of the State of Bihar, including persons
holding constitutional posts, to use the emblem as prescribed
under the Emblem and Names (Prevention of Improper Use)
Act, 1950, the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper
Use) Act, 2005, and the State Emblem of India (Regulation of
Use) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2007').
The petitioner further submits that the Rules of 2007 were
Patna High Court CWJC No.19142 of 2010 dt.19-08-2025
notified in the Gazette of India on 4th October 2007. These
Rules were framed under the powers conferred by Section 11 of
the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act,
2005 (50 of 2005), regulating the use of the State Emblem of
India in official seals, stationery, and design. He further submits
that Schedule 1 of the said Rules of 2007 specifies in detail the
names of the functionaries authorized to use the emblem.
According to the petitioner, those functionaries whose names
appear in Schedule 1 shall not use any other symbol. Hence, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of
mandamus directing compliance with the said provisions.
5. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 17 and 18
(Patna High Court) submits that the writ petition filed by the
petitioner is not maintainable for two reasons. Firstly, the relief
sought by the petitioner is based on distinct statutes, namely, the
Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950
[Act No. 12 of 1950], the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of
Improper Use) Act, 2005 [Act No. 50 of 2005] and the Rules of
2007. Counsel further submits that the first two Acts have been
enacted for specific and separate purposes, namely, "an Act to
prevent the improper use of certain emblems and names for
professional and commercial purposes" and "further an Act
Patna High Court CWJC No.19142 of 2010 dt.19-08-2025
prohibit the improper use of the State Emblem of India for
professional and commercial purpose and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto" respectively. Counsel also
submits that although both Acts pertain to the prevention of the
improper use of emblems, the present writ petition seeks a
direction against the State of Bihar and its officials for
mandatory use of the national emblem on official stationery and
for coining a separate State Emblem.
6. Counsel further submits that in the said Rules of
2007, particularly Rule 4 of the Rules of 2007 is most relevant,
as it clarifies the petitioner's doubts regarding the binding
precedent of the said emblem, as well as the applicability of any
other design, specifically concerning adoption by the State or
Union Territories.
7. With a view to deciding the present writ petition,
it is necessary to quote the specific Rule 4 of the Rules of 2007,
which is as follows:-
"4. Adoption by States or Union
territories. (1) A State Government may
adopt the emblem as the official Emblem of
the State or the Union territory, as the case
may be, without obtaining the approval of
the Central Government.
(2) Where a State Government
Patna High Court CWJC No.19142 of 2010 dt.19-08-2025
proposes to incorporate the emblem or any
part thereof in the Emblem of that State or
Union territory, as the case may be, it shall
do so after obtaining the prior approval of
the Central Government and shall get the
design and lay out approved by the Central
Government:
Provided that where a State
Government has already incorporated the
emblem or part thereof in the Emblem of that
State or Union territory, as the case may be,
prior to the coming into force of these rules,
it may, subject to the other provisions of
these rules, continue to use the emblem."
8. Upon a bare reading of Rule 4 of the Rules of
2007, it is clear that the adoption of the said emblem is not a
binding precedent upon the State. The Rule itself states that the
State Government may adopt the emblem, and if, prior to the
enactment of this Rule, the State was using any other emblem, it
may continue to use that emblem as the State Emblem.
9. In this view of the matter, particularly after a
bare reading of the provisions of the Rules of 2007, it becomes
crystal clear that the adoption of the emblem is not a binding
precedent. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the present
writ petition. It is the prerogative of the State to adopt the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.19142 of 2010 dt.19-08-2025
emblem, but it is not a binding principle.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.08.2025
Transmission Date NA
