Patna High Court
Devendra Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 25 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17327 of 2021
======================================================
Devendra Prasad Singh, Son of Late Ramkhelari Singh, Resident of Village-
Rajjupur, P.S.-Veldi, District-Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Saran, Chhapra.
3. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Amnaur, Saran at Chapra.
4. The Block Development Officer, Amnaur, Saran at Chapra.
5. Panchayat Sachiv Panchayt Raj Katsa Amnaur, Saran at Chapra.
6. Mukhiya Panchayt Raj Katsa, Amnaur, Saran at Chapra.
7. Ward Member No. 11 namely Ritesh Kumar Yadav, son of Rabindra Prakash
Yadav, Village-Rajjupur, P.S.-Veldi, District-Saran at Chapra.
8. Ward Member No. 12 namely Santosh Kumar Singh, Son of Jay Prasad
Singh, Village-Rajjupur, P.S.-Veldi, District-Saran at Chapra.
9. Rabindra Prasad Yadav, son of Late Sarbanand Rai, Village-Rajjupur, P.S.-
Veldi, District-Saran at Chapra.
10. Surendra Sah, son of Late Nageshwar Sah, Village-Rajjupur, P.S.-Veldi,
District-Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Girish Chandra Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Lalit Kishore ( AG )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 25-10-2021
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):
"For issuance for appropriate writ or
writs, direction or directions commanding
the respondents to make an enquiry in the
work done under the NAL-JAL Yojna which
is going on in ward no. 11 and 12 of Block
Amnaur, Gram Panchayat Raj Katsa in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17327 of 2021 dt.25-10-2021
district of Saran at Chapara, which is
different in quality and is hazards to the
health of the villagers and the material is
being used which is below the quality and
the boring has been done on private land of
respondent no. 9 and 10 where as
government land is available."
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 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17327 of 2021 dt.25-10-2021
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17327 of 2021 dt.25-10-2021
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."
After the matter was heard for some time, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner shall be content
if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 namely District
Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, to consider and decide the
representation, within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the respondents states that the
representation shall be dealt with in accordance with law,
expeditiously and positively within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes
recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17327 of 2021 dt.25-10-2021
before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in
accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch.
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Needless to say that while considering such request,
principles of natural justice shall be followed and due
opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties.
If aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner shall
have liberty to approach this Court by way of separate
petition(s), if so required and desired.
Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
( A. M. Badar, J)
K.C.Jha/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 27.10.2021
Transmission Date
