Patna High Court

Manoj Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 24 February, 2022

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.267 of 2022
     ======================================================

Manoj Kumar Singh, Son of Late Bashishth Singh Proprietor of Kishan Rice Mill Maruan Dinara, Resident of Village Maruan, Gram Panchayat- Akodha, Police Station - Dinara, District- Rohtas (Sasaram).

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Co- operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Registrar, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food Corporation (BSFC), Patna.

4. Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The General Manager, Procurement Corporation, Main Office, Patna.

6. The District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram).

7. District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, District - Rohtas (Sasaram).

8. District Co- Operative Officer, District - Rohtas (Sasaram).

9. Managing Director, The Sasaram - Bhabhuya Central Co- operative Bank Limited, Sasaram.

10. Branch Manager, The Sasaram- Bhabhua Central Co-operative Bank Limited, District- Rohtas.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate For BSFC : Mr. Shailender Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AG-5

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 24-02-2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s).

(i) To issue writ in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents to Patna High Court CWJC No.267 of 2022 dt.24-02-2022

refund the security amount of Rs. 2 lacs and admitted milling charge of Rs. 72388/- with interest at bank rate as collected from the petitioner for dues amount of gunny bags.

(ii) For any other relief/reliefs to which petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case."

After the matter was heard for some time, finding the

Bench not to be agreeable with the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner,

under instructions, states that petitioner shall be content if a

direction is issued to the authority concerned i.e. (Respondent

No. 8, District Co- Operative Officer, District - Rohtas

(Sasaram) 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

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.

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:- Patna High Court CWJC No.267 of 2022 dt.24-02-2022

"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. 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.267 of 2022 dt.24-02-2022

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 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.' Patna High Court CWJC No.267 of 2022 dt.24-02-2022

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) 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) 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;