Patna High Court
Pankaj Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 19 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8151 of 2021
======================================================
1. Pankaj Kumar Singh Son of Ram Avadhesh Singh Resident of Village-
Gorasara, P.O. and P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
2. Jagat Singh Son of Ram Narayan Singh Resident of Village- Ramgarh, P.O.
and P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
3. Yogesh Kumar Pandey Son of Rameshwar Pandey Resident of Village-
Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
4. Shyam Mohan Chaudhary Son of Badhu Chaudhary Resident of Village-
Gorasara, P.O. and P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Urban Development and Aawash Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua.
4. The D.C.L.R., Mohania, Kaimur at Bhabua.
5. The Block Development Officer, Block- Ramgarh, Kaimur at Bhabua.
6. The Circle Officer, Block- Ramgarh, Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Parwej Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Pushkar Narain Shahi (AAG-6)
======================================================
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 an appropriate writ in the nature of
Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents
not to declare village/panchayat Ramgarh as Nagar
Panchayat in district of Kaimur at Bhabua as this village
does not complete all parameter for becoming Nagar
Panchayat and as till now more than 85% population
of the village/Panchayat is depend on agriculture.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8151 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of
Mandamus. commanding and directing the respondents
not to declare village/Panchayat Ramgarh as Nagar
Panchayat in district of Kaimur at Bhabua as population
of this particular village/ Panchayat as per 2020 State
Assembly Election is approx 9500 and as such this
village/Panchayat does not complete mandatory
characteria for declaring any village as Nagar Panchayat
as, as per law minimum 12,000 (Twelve Thousand)
population is required to declare a village as Nagar
Panchayat.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of
Mandamus. commanding and directing the respondents
that prior to declare the Ramgarh as Nagar Panchayat
make physical verification of the population of the
village Ramgarh as per 2020 State Election voter list
and also to gather detail regarding occupation of the
resident of the Ramgarh and till completing the process
the respondents should be restrained from declaring
Ramgarh as Nagar Panchayat.
(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of
Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents
if half of the population of Ramgarh is not involve in
business then this village can't be declare as Nagar
Panchayat.
(v) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of
Certiorari for setting aside the Press Vigyapti issued by
Urban Development and Aawash Department. Govt. of
Bihar in respect of declaration of the Ramgarh as Nagar
Panchayat Ramgarh as this village does not fulfill the
basis characteria to declare Nagar Panchayat and also to
call for a detail report regarding notification of Nagar
Panchayat of other village.
(vi) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of
Certiorari for setting aside the letter dated 20.05.2020
issue by B.D.O.. Ramgarh (Annexure-2). which has
been issued without any proper verification and this
letter has been issued by the B.D.O. in such period
when in state of Bihar as well as in whole India lock
down was going on and this fact itself shows that the
B.D.O.. Ramgarh has made a forge and fabricated report
to make please his higher authority and as such report is
fit to be quashed.
(vi) For issuance of any other writ(s)/ orders/direction(s)
for which the writ petitioners are legally found entitled
on behalf of his community and poor villagers under the
facts and circumstances of the case and also to direct the
respondents to make status quo till final decision of this
case."
After the matter was heard for some time, learned
counsel for the petitioners, under instructions, states that
petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8151 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
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 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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.8151 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.8151 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.8151 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
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;
(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;
Patna High Court CWJC No.8151 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021
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
