Patna High Court
Anisul Rain vs The State Of Bihar on 5 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11142 of 2022
======================================================
1. Anisul Rain S/o Sahabuddin Rain, R/o Village- Mehtar Patti, Ward No. 9,
P.O.- Birpur, Block- Basopatti, District- Madhubani.
2. Chhedi Safi, S/o Rambali Sah, R/o Village- Mehtarpatti, Ward No. 10, P.O.-
Birpur, Block- Basopatti, District- Madhubani.
3. Jitendra Kumar Thakur, S/o Akhileshwar Thakur, R/o Village and P.O.-
Yasho, P.S.- Basopatti, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani.
5. The District Program Co-ordinator, Madhubani.
6. The Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Gram Panchayat Raj- Birpur, Block-
Basopatti, District- Madhubani.
7. The Block Development Officer, Basopatti, Madhubani.
8. The Sub Divisional Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Jaynagar,
Madhubani.
9. The Sub Divisional Officer, Jayanagar, Madhubani.
10. Jahira Khatoon, presently working as the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj-
Birpur, Block- Basopatti, District- Madhubani.
11. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj- Birpur, Block- Basopatti,
District- Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kumar Alok (Sc7)
======================================================
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.)
Patna High Court CWJC No.11142 of 2022 dt.05-08-2022
Date : 05-08-2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.11142 of 2022 dt.05-08-2022
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.11142 of 2022 dt.05-08-2022
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)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 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."
Patna High Court CWJC No.11142 of 2022 dt.05-08-2022
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
respondent no.6, The Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Gram
Panchayat Raj- Birpur, Block- Basopatti, District-
Madhubani 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 petitioners, the authority
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 on 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.11142 of 2022 dt.05-08-2022
within a period of four months from the date of its filing along
with a copy of this order;
(c) The order assigning reasons shall be communicated
to the petitioner;
(d) Needless to add, while considering such
representation, principles of natural justice shall be followed
and due opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties;
(e) Also, opportunity to place on record all relevant
materials/documents shall be granted to the parties;
(f) Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take
recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available
in accordance with law;
(g) 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;
(h) Liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the
appropriate forum/Court, should the need so arise subsequently
on the same and subsequent cause of action;
(i) We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All
issues are left open;
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11142 of 2022 dt.05-08-2022
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
( S. Kumar, J)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08.08.2022
Transmission Date NA
