Patna High Court
Chandra Shekhar Azad vs The State Of Bihar on 5 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5044 of 2021
======================================================
Chandra Shekhar Azad S/o- Surya Narayan Singh R/o- Murhan, P.S.-
Goradih, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Commissioner MANREGA, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Commissioner Bhagalpur.
5. The District Magistrate Bhagalpur.
6. The Dy. Development Commissioner Bhagalpur.
7. The D.I.G. Bhagalpur.
8. The Superintendent of Police Bhagalpur.
9. The Officer in- Charge Goradih Police Station, Bhagalpur.
10. The Officer in Charge of Sanhaula Police Station Bhagalpur.
11. The Commissioner Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
12. The Director General Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon'ble the Chief
Justice /Hon'ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their
residential offices/residences. Also, the Advocates and the Staffs joined
the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences
/offices.)
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ritika Rani, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi-AAG 6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR )
Date : 05-07-2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
"(i) For commanding the respondent to enquire into
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2021 dt.05-07-2021
the matter after lodging of FIR by Vigilance
Investigation Bureau for misappropriation/
misuse/defalcation Government money under
Mahatma Gandhi national rural employment
guarantee Act 2005 (thereinafter referred as
manrega) relating to Murhan jamin Gram panchayat
and Silhan khajuriya Gram panchayat in the district
of Bhagalpur by state officials or Gram panchayat
officials concerned the Mukhiya of Murhan jamin
Gram panchayat and silhan khajuriya Gram
panchayat, panchayat raj sachiv, member of
panchayat sammitti, Asst Engineer, junior Engineer
in gross misuse in construction of tree plantation,
cow shed construction Payment of fargi job cards,
construction of drainage Construction of boundary of
school, construction of PCC road etc for the period
of 2016 to 2020 under MANREGA Program.
(ii) Also commanding the respondent concern to
recover the under misappropriated defalcated
government money Manrega of Murhan jamin and
silhan khajuriya Gram panchayat under block of
Goradih/ sanhaula block respectively in order of
compensate of loss of public money after initiation of
proceeding under Bihar and Orissa public demand
recovery Act, 1914.
(iii) For also commanding the respondent to take
departmental action against the erring officials who
are involved misappropriation, misusing and making
fargi document relating to job cards measurement
book relating to manrega of murhan jamin and silhan
khajuriya Gram panchayat under the block of
Goradih/ sanhaula block respectively.
(iv) For directed to respondent to ensure audit of
amount incurred/expenditure of money under
Manrega for the year of 2016-20 by chartered
accountant as per section 24 of Manrega Act 2005."
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2021 dt.05-07-2021
After the matter was heard for some time, learned
counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, states that
petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the
authority concerned to consider and decide the representation
which the petitioner shall be filing within a period of four
weeks from today for redressal of the grievance(s).
Learned counsel for the respondents states that if such
a representation is filed by the petitioner, the authority
concerned shall consider and dispose it of expeditiously and
preferably within a period of three months from the date of its
filing along with a copy of this order.
Statement accepted and taken on record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. N. Jeevaraj Vs.
Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2
SCC 653, paragraphs 34 to 38 observed as under:-
"34. The learned counsel for the parties addressed
us on the question of the bona fides of Nagalaxmi Bai in
filing a public interest litigation. We leave this question
open and do not express any opinion on the correctness or
otherwise of the decision of the High Court in this regard.
35. However, we note that generally speaking,
procedural technicalities ought to take a back seat in public
interest litigation. This Court held in Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC
504] to this effect as follows: (SCC p. 515, para 16)
"16. The writ petitions before us are not inter
parties disputes and have been raised by way of public
interest litigation and the controversy before the court
is as to whether for social safety and for creating a
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2021 dt.05-07-2021
hazardless environment for the people to live in,
mining in the area should be permitted or stopped. We
may not be taken to have said that for public interest
litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same
time it has to be remembered that every technicality in
the procedural law is not available as a defence when
a matter of grave public importance is for
consideration before the court."
36. A considerable amount has been said about
public interest litigation in R&M Trust [R&M Trust v.
Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC
91] and it is not necessary for us to dwell any further on
this except to say that in issues pertaining to good
governance, the courts ought to be somewhat more liberal
in entertaining public interest litigation. However, in
matters that may not be of moment or a litigation
essentially directed against one organisation or individual
(such as the present litigation which was directed only
against Sadananda Gowda and later Jeevaraj was
impleaded) ought not to be entertained or should be rarely
entertained. Other remedies are also available to public
spirited litigants and they should be encouraged to avail of
such remedies.
37. In such cases, that might not strictly fall in the
category of public interest litigation and for which other
remedies are available, insofar as the issuance of a writ of
mandamus is concerned, this Court held in Union of India
v. S.B. Vohra [Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC
150: 2004 SCC (L&S) 363] that: (SCC p. 160, paras 12-
13)
"12. Mandamus literally means a command.
The essence of mandamus in England was that it was
a royal command issued by the King's Bench (now
Queen's Bench) directing performance of a public
legal duty.
13. A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of
a person who establishes a legal right in himself. A
writ of mandamus is issued against a person who has
a legal duty to perform but has failed and/or
neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates from
either in discharge of a public duty or by operation of
law. The writ of mandamus is of a most extensive
remedial nature. The object of mandamus is to
prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is
required to be granted in all cases where law has
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2021 dt.05-07-2021
established no specific remedy and whether justice
despite demanded has not been granted."
38. A salutary principle or a well-recognised rule
that needs to be kept in mind before issuing a writ of
mandamus was stated in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate
Ltd. v. Union of India [Saraswati Industrial Syndicate
Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630] in the
following words: (SCC pp. 641-42, paras 24-25)
"24. ... The powers of the High Court
under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the
limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs
are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the
well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the
nature of a mandamus would issue when there is
no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in
this country as well. Even in cases of alleged
breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general
rule, which is subject to certain exceptions,
applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of
mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find
it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd
Edn.), Vol. 11, p. 106:
'198. Demand for performance must
precede application.--As a general rule the
order will not be granted unless the party
complained of has known what it was he was
required to do, so that he had the means of
considering whether or not he should comply,
and it must be shown by evidence that there
was a distinct demand of that which the party
seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and
that that demand was met by a refusal.'
25. In the cases before us there was no such
demand or refusal. Thus, no ground whatsoever is
shown here for the issue of any writ, order, or
direction under Article 226 of the Constitution."
As such, petition stands disposed of in the following
terms:-
(a) Petitioner shall approach the authority concerned
within a period of four weeks from today by filing a
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2021 dt.05-07-2021
representation for redressal of the grievance(s);
(b) The authority concerned shall consider and dispose
it of expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order preferably
within a period of three months from the date of its filing along
with a copy of this order;
(c) Needless to add, while considering such
representation, principles of natural justice shall be followed
and due opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties;
(d) Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take
recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available
in accordance with law;
(e) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes
recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law,
before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in
accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch;
(f) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the
Court, if the need so rises subsequently on the same and
subsequent cause of action;
(g) We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All
issues are left open;
(h) The proceedings, during the time of current
Pandemic- Covid-19 shall be conducted through digital mode,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2021 dt.05-07-2021
unless the parties otherwise mutually agree to meet in person
i.e. physical mode;
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed
of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
( S. Kumar, J)
ranjan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date
Transmission Date NA
