Ravindra Kumar vs The Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 123 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19209 of 2021
     ======================================================

Ravindra Kumar, Son of Shiv Prasad, Resident of Village-Jagdishpur, Bargaon, P.O., P.S. and District-Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Union of India, through its, Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Government of India, New Delhi.

2. The Secretary, Ministry o Culture, Government of India, New Delhi.

3. The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Government of India, New Delhi.

4. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Government of India, New Delhi.

5. The Nava Nalanda, Mahavihara, Deemed to be University Under Ministry of Culture, Govt. of India, through its Vice Chancellor Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda, Bihar.

6. The Vice-Chancellor, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda, Bihar.

7. Registrar, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda, Bihar.

Respondents 1st Sets.

8. Nitesh Kumar Pandey, Son of Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Account Officer, Nava Nalanda, Mahavirhara, Nalanda,

9. Alok Ranjan, Son of Sri Madan Mohan Prasad, Private Secretary for Vice-

Chencellor, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda.

10. Rajeev Kumar Son of Shri Umapati Lal, Senior Assistant, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda.

11. Astitva Swaroop Mishra, Son of Shri Arun Mishra, Senior Assistant, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda.

12. Komal Bharti, Daughter of Shri Prakash Choudhary, Library Assistant Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda.

13. Shubham Mishra, Son of Shri Birj Mohan Mishra, Steno-Cum-Typist, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda.

14. Somesh Kumar, Son of Shri Vishwambhar Pandey, MTS Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda.

15. Praful Kumar, Son of Shri Siya Ram Singh, MTS, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda.

16. Karu Prasad, Son of Sri Bisundhary Mahto, MTS, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda.

17. Sanjay Sharma, Son of Subhash Sharma, MTS, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda.

18. Ankit Kumar, Son of Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, MTS, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, (Deemed to be University), Nalanda.

Respondents No. 2nd Sets.

19. Dr. Sushim Dubey, Professor in Philosophy, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, (Deemed to be University), Nalanda.

Patna High Court CWJC No.19209 of 2021 dt.05-01-2022

20. Dr. Rabindra Nath Srivastave, Professor in Hindi, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, (Deemed to be University), Nalanda.

21. Dr. Rana Purshottam Kumar Singh, Professor in Buddhist Studies. Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, (Deemed to be University), Nalanda. Bihar.

22. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Das, Associates Professor in Ancient History, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, (Deemed to be University), Nalanda. Bihar.

23. Dr. Meeta Associates Processor in English, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, (Deemed to be University), Nalanda. Bihar.

24. Dr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Associates Procedssor in Buddhist Studies, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, (Deemed to be University), Nalanda, Bihar....

Respondents 3rd Sets.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Javed Aslam, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Lalit Kishore ( A.G. ) ====================================================== 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.)

Date : 05-01-2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

1. That this Public interest litigation (P.I.L.) is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ and/or direction/order/orders, commending the respondents-authorities, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, (Deemed to be University, (Nalanda, (hereinafter referred to as NNM) to set up the inquiry by any independent agency with regard to the bungling, irregularities and illegality in the appointments in the different posts either non-Teaching staffs or Teaching staffs in the respondents, Nava Nalanda Mahaviraha (Deemed to be University), Nalanda, Bihar as the same were appointed in gross contravention of the Patna High Court CWJC No.19209 of 2021 dt.05-01-2022

memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations, 2014 and University Grants Commission (UGC), Regulations, 2010 and subsequent Amendments Regulations as well as to annul the said appointments or any other relief or reliefs which the petitioner is entitled to."

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 Patna High Court CWJC No.19209 of 2021 dt.05-01-2022

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 writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to Patna High Court CWJC No.19209 of 2021 dt.05-01-2022

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 i.e. (Respondent No. 7, the Registrar, Nava

Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda, Bihar) 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.19209 of 2021 dt.05-01-2022

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.19209 of 2021 dt.05-01-2022

accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch;

(f) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the

Court, if the need so arises 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)

( S. Kumar, J) veena/rajiv-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date