Patna High Court
Ranjit Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 13 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7153 of 2021
======================================================
1. Ranjit Singh Son of Late Hari Nandan Singh Resident of Village-Rampur
Madhaul, P.S.-Desari, Dist.-Vaishali.
2. Rahul Kumar Son of Jai Prasad Singh Resident of Village-Rampur Madhaul,
P.S.-Desari, Dist.-Vaishali.
3. Sukesh Kumar Son of Nawal Kishore Singh Resident of Village-Rampur
Madhaul, P.S.-Desari, Dist.-Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and
Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Dept. of Rural Development, Bihar at Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Tirhut Range at Muzaffarpur.
4. The Engineer in-Chief, Rural Development, Bihar at Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.
6. The District Education Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur.
7. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Sub-Division at Mahnar.
8. The Circle Officer, Desari at Desari, Dist.-Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Kumar Soni, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG 4
======================================================
(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video
Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through
Video Conferencing from their residence.)
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR)
Date : 13-07-2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7153 of 2021 dt.13-07-2021
Petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):-
"A. In the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to enquire into the construction of the .550
Km P.C.C. road constructed under Gramin Tola Sampark
Nischaya Yojana under the office of Executive Engineer
Rural Works Department Work Division Mahnar situated
at Village Rampur Madhaul, P.S. Desari, which is
claimed to be completed on 2.7.2019 for Rs. 37.43 lakhs,
but in place of .550 Km Road only 150-200 metres of
P.C.C. road has been constructed over there and the
contractor have been paid Rs. 37.43 lacs for the entire
road as disclosed by respondents as .550 Km and after
completion of the enquiry they further complete the
construction of Road to .550 Km from primary school
Madhaul Khurd to tola as claimed or any alternate route
available to them and also take necessary actions against
the erring officers.
B. For direction to the respondents concern to
remove the encroachment over the play ground of the
primary school Madhaul Khurd approx 2 to 4 decimals
and other areas of the projected .550 Km P.c.c. Road
appertaining khata no. 125, Khesra no. 172 total
measuring 10 decimals situated at village Rampur
Madhaul, P.S. Desari, District- Vaishali whereby the
contractor in convenience of some local dwellers
encroached the entire play ground of the school and
constructed P.C.C. Road over there without obtaining any
consent or no objection from the department of
Education, Vaishali and in spite of availability of other
lands and alternate route for the P.C.C. road under
Gramin Tola Sampark Yojana.
C. And for any other relief(s) which may be fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Patna High Court CWJC No.7153 of 2021 dt.13-07-2021
After the matter was heard for some time, learned
counsel for the petitioners, under instructions, state that
petitioners shall be content if a direction is issued to the
authority concerned to consider and decide the representation
which the petitioners 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 petitioners, 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7153 of 2021 dt.13-07-2021
before the court is as to whether for social safety
and for creating a 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.7153 of 2021 dt.13-07-2021
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) Petitioners shall approach the authority concerned
Patna High Court CWJC No.7153 of 2021 dt.13-07-2021
within a period of four weeks from today by filing a
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 petitioners 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7153 of 2021 dt.13-07-2021
Pandemic- Covid-19 shall be conducted through digital mode,
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)
veena/rajiv-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date
Transmission Date NA
