Patna High Court
Dasrath Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 26 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11563 of 2021
======================================================
Dasrath Ram Son of Bodhan Ram, Resident of Village - Phoolwariya - 01,
P.S. - Phoolwariya, District - Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Government of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of
Bihar.
3. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar.
4. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Urban Development Department,
Government of Bihar.
5. The District Magistrate, Begusarai.
6. The Block Development Officer, Barauni.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, A.A.G. 6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 26-10-2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
"For issuance of a Writ in the nature
of certiorari to quash the notification as contained
in memo no. 1765 dated 28.4.2021 issued under the
signature of Deputy Secretary to the Government,
Uirban Development and Housing Department,
Bihar, Patna whereby and where under the
Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Teghra,
Begusarai has been given additional charge of
newly declared Nagar Parisad, Barauni and further
for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus
Patna High Court CWJC No.11563 of 2021 dt.26-10-2021
commanding and directing the respondent
authorities to refrain from giving effect to the
above said Notification dated 28.4.2021 and further
direction to allow the present duly elected
representatives of the respective Gram Panchayats
to perform their duties in the larger interest of
beneficiaries and people and further for issuance of
any other appropriate writ or writs, order or orders
it may deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court."
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.11563 of 2021 dt.26-10-2021
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.11563 of 2021 dt.26-10-2021
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."
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 (Respondent No. 2) 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.11563 of 2021 dt.26-10-2021
concerned shall consider and dispose it of expeditiously and
preferably within a period of four months from the date of its
filing along with a copy of this order.
Statement accepted and taken on record.
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 four 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.11563 of 2021 dt.26-10-2021
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)
( A. M. Badar, J)
K.C.Jha/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 27.10.2021
Transmission Date
