Patna High Court
Rajsh Pal vs The State Of Bihar on 19 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7435 of 2021
======================================================
Rajsh Pal, Son of Rabindra Bhagat, Resident of 025, Bhajdih Ward No.03,
Bhojdih, Sheikhpura, Bihar Pin Code 811105 (the Panchayat Samiti Sanaiya
Gram Panchayat Raj Sanaiya-Part-02 Under Block-Ariari District-
Sheikhpura). ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secreary (Establishment), Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Commissioner, Munger.
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
District Board, Sheikhpura, Bihar.
6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sanaiya, Ariyari, Sheikhpura.
7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sanaiya, Ariyari, Sheikhpura
.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhim Sen Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay (GA-5).
======================================================
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.
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s).
"(i) For direction/order to the respondents concern
to stay the construction of Panchayat Sarkar
Bhawan on the plot No. 2254 Khata No. 346 Area-
heaving it nature of Gair Majurua Malik Land of
Boverment of Bihar wherupon fund allotted by
order dated 07.09.2019 of Block Development
officer, Aiyari, Dist- Shaikhpura ignoring the
objection of the Mass people of the Gram
Panchayat Raj Sanaiya. since the plot in question
Patna High Court CWJC No.7435 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
belongs for away near about 3KM from the
Panchayat Mukhyalaya.
(ii) For Direction/ order to the respondents
authority concern to construct the Panchayat Sarkar
Bhawan on the middle of Gram Panchayat on plot
Acre under Mauza Sanaiya having its nature Gair
Majrua Aam Parti Kadim Land of Government of
Bihar. Which had already been decided in the Aam
Sabha dated 05.01.2021 for construction Panchayat
Sarkur Bhuwan in presence of all concern and
allow the prayer after cancelling the order dated
07/9/2019 of Block Development Officer Ariyari.
(iii) For other relief/reliefs as your Lordships may
be deem fit and proper."
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7435 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7435 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7435 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7435 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
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,
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
