Patna High Court
Girja Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 5 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14990 of 2019
======================================================
Girja Devi, Wife of Late Baidyanath Pandey, residing at C/o Shaibal Sahay,
House No. 80, near Arbind College, Navjivan Vihar, Malviya Nagar, South
Delhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Principal Secretary Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Patna.
4. Superintendent of Police, Saran.
5. District Certificate Officer, Chappra, Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad ( SC8 )
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.C. to S.C.8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 05-12-2022
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):
"That this petition is being filed for quashing of
the letter dated 16.08.05 (after calling it from
respondents) sent by S.P. Saran at Chapra for recovery
of Rs.9263=00 as Govt. dues for providing bodyguard
to her for the period 13.6.2001 to 15.10.2001, and also
for quashing Certificate notice under Public Demand
Recovery Act with threatening to send in Civil prison."
After the matter was heard for some time, finding
the Bench not to be agreeable with the submissions made by
Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2019 dt.05-12-2022
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
petitioner, under instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the
present petition reserving liberty to approach Respondent No. 5,
namely District Certificate Officer, Chhapra, Saran venting out
the grievances, subject matter of the present petition.
Liberty, as prayed for, is granted.
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."
Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2019 dt.05-12-2022
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2019 dt.05-12-2022
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."
As such, petition stands disposed of as withdrawn
with the following directions/observations/liberty:-
(a) Petitioner shall approach the authority concerned
i.e. Respondent No.5, namely District Certificate
Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2019 dt.05-12-2022
Officer, Chhapra, Saran 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) 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 petitioner to take
recourse to such alternative remedies as are
otherwise available in accordance with law;
(g) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes
recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise
available in law, before the appropriate forum, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2019 dt.05-12-2022
same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law
and with reasonable dispatch;
(h) Liberty reserved to the petitioner 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;
(j) The proceedings 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 as withdrawn in the
aforesaid terms.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 07.12.2022
Transmission Date
