Patna High Court
Md. Merajuddin @ Md. Meraj vs The State Of Bihar on 19 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7324 of 2021
======================================================
1. Md. Merajuddin @ Md. Meraj son of Md. Nasir Uddin, resident of Village-
Bhusunda, P.O. Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
2. Abdul Samad, son of Md. Sahabuddin, resident of Village-Bhusunda, P.O.
Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
3. Md. Mobin, son of Late Abdul Sattar, resident of Village-Bhusunda, P.O.
Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
4. Md. Rafique, son of Late Md. Khalid, resident of Village-Bhusunda, P.O.
Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
5. Md. Jubair Alam, son of Md. Rafique, resident of Village-Bhusunda, P.O.
Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
6. Md. Isa, son of Late Md. Allauddin, resident of Village-Bhusunda, P.O.
Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
7. Md. Altaf, son of Late Md. Allauddin, resident of Village-Bhusunda, P.O.
Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya.
5. The Circle Officer, Manpur, Gaya.
6. Krishna Manjhi, son of Late Chandeshwar Manjhi, resident of Village-
Bhusunda, P.O. Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
7. Renu Devi, Wife of Munna Manjhi, resident of Village-Bhusunda, P.O.
Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
8. Suga Devi, Daughter of Late Shivlakhan Manjhi, resident of Village-
Bhusunda, P.O. Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
9. Ganga Manjhi, son of Late Manki Manjhi, resident of Village-Bhusunda,
P.O. Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
10. Rajauli Dom , son of Musan Dom, resident of Village-Bhusunda, P.O.
Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
11. Ravindra Manjhi, son of Jageshwar Manjhi, resident of Village-Bhusunda,
P.O. Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
12. Mani Devi, Wife of Late Gaya Manjhi, resident of Village-Bhusunda, P.O.
Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
13. Kuleshwari Devi, Wife of Late Kidhori Manjhi, resident of Village-
Bhusunda, P.O. Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
14. Tetri Devi, Wife of Late Bindeshwar Manjhi, resident of Village-Bhusunda,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7324 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
P.O. Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
15. Nepali Manjhi, son of Late Jagdidh Manjhi, resident of Village-Bhusunda,
P.O. Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
16. Sari Devi, Wife of Late Jagdish Manjhi, resident of Village-Bhusunda, P.O.
Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
17. Shiv Shankar Manjhi, son of Late Jagdish Manjhi, resident of Village-
Bhusunda, P.O. Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
18. Nandlal Manjhi, son of Late Jagdish Manjhi, resident of Village-Bhusunda,
P.O. Nauranga, Police Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Ray, GP-18.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR)
(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the
Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.)
Date : 19-07-2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s).
(i) For issuance of a writ of mandamus for
direction to the respondents authorities to
restrain respondent nos. 6 to 19 to encroach
h the "Aam Rasta" (Public land) bearing
arera 72 decimals situated at Mauza-
Bhusunda, P.S. Mufassil, District -Gaya
which is the Aam Rasta only way of
communication of more than 50 houses
people of the village Bhusunda and if the
respondent no. 6 to 19 will not restrained
from encroachment/illegal construction, the
main rasta (way) of the villagers will be
stopped.
(ii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus for
commanding the respondents who despite
several representations/public petitions
Patna High Court CWJC No.7324 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
could not take any action to restrain
respondent no. 6 to 19 from encroachment
of "Aam Rasta" (Public land) of the
villagers of Bhusunda village.
(iii) For issuance of any other relief / reliefs
which may deem fit and proper of the facts
and circumstances of the case and for which
the petitioner may entitle."
After the matter was heard for some time, learned
counsel for the petitioners, under instructions, states that
petitioners shall be content if a direction is issued to the Circle
Officer, Manpur, Gaya 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 Circle Officer,
Manpur, Gaya 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7324 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7324 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
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
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.'
Patna High Court CWJC No.7324 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
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 Circle Officer,
Manpur, Gaya within a period of four weeks from today by
filing a representation for redressal of the grievance(s);
(b) The Circle Officer, Manpur, Gaya 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 petitioners take
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;
Patna High Court CWJC No.7324 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
(f) Liberty reserved to the petitioners 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,
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
