Ram Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3467 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8448 of 2021
     ======================================================

1. Ram Kumar Singh S/o Gajadhar Singh R/o Village, P.O. and P.S. - Bheldi District-

Saran.

2. Alok Kumar S/o Sri Birendra Prasad Singh R/o - Village, P.O. and P.S. - Bheldi District- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Rural Development Govt.

of India, New Delhi.

2. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development Govt. of India, New Delhi.

3. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Bihar Patna.

4. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department Bihar Patna.

5. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar Patna.

6. The Principal Secretary Department of Panchayati Raj, Bihar Patna.

7. The Principal Secretary, Department of Labour and Social Welfare Department, Bihar Patna.

8. Additional Director General, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar Patna.

9. The Commissioner MANREGA, BIhar Patna.

10. The Divisional Commissioner, Saran.

11. The Collector, Saran Chhapra.

12. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Saran.

13. The Director Accounts Administration and Self Employment, District Rural Development Authority, Saran Chhapra.

14. The Program Officer, MGNREGA Sadar Saran Chhapra.

15. The Assistant Engineer, MGNREGA, District - Saran.

16. The Junior Engineer, MGNREGA, District - Saran.

17. The Program Officer, Parsa, MGNREGA, District - Saran.

18. Smt. Bachchi Kuar W/o Late jai Prakash Singh Mukhiya, Bheldi Panchayat, Block- Parsa, District- Saran.

19. Panchayat Sachiv, Bheldi Panchayat, Block- Parsa, District- Saran.

20. Panchayat Rojgar Sewak, Bheldi Panchayat, Block- Parsa, District- Saran.

21. Rahul Kumar Singh S/o Jai Prakash Singh R/o Village - Bheldi, Block- Parsa, District- Saran.

22. Ranjan Kumar Singh S/o Jai Prakash Singh R/o Village - Bheldi, Block - Parsa, District- Saran.

23. Nidhi Kumari W/o Rahul Kumar Singh R/o Village - Bheldi, Block- Parsa, District-

Saran.

24. Ranjit Kumar Singh S/o Lalan Singh Proprietor Nidhi Khad Beej Bhandar, Bheldi, R/o Village - Bheldi, Block- Parsa, District- Saran.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Patna High Court CWJC No.8448 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Manoj Mr. Surya Narayan Yadav, Advocates For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dr. K. N. Singh ( Asg ) Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, GA 2 Mr. Kunal Tiwari, AC to GA 2 ====================================================== 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):-

"For issuance of appropriate writ/ writs by commanding the respondents to quash and set aside the wrong, illegal and collusive report bearing letter no.1363 dt.- 7.09.2020 by respondent no.13 to 16 by which wrongly and illegally improper enquiry leaving the high public revenue loss in the tune of more than 15 crores in previous 8 to 10 years which may be made by holding fresh enquiry by respondent no.8 or any appropriate authority and for taking action against the concerned persons including local authorities which are in collusion with the private respondents and the Mukhiya, respondent no.18 causing large scale public revenue loss and erosion of schemes like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Nal Jal Yojana under Saat Nischaya Yojana, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna at the basis of forgery, fund embezzlement malpractices and corruption in Bheldi Panchayat Block Parsa of District- Saran Chhapra, in the interest of justice and for saving larger public interest."

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

authority concerned (respondent no.9, The Commissioner

MANREGA, Bihar Patna) to consider and decide the Patna High Court CWJC No.8448 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021

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 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.8448 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021

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 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.8448 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021

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

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 Patna High Court CWJC No.8448 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021

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;

(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)


Sanjay/-                                             ( S. Kumar, J)
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          24.07.2021
Transmission Date       NA