Patna High Court
Kusumlata Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 4 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9445 of 2020
======================================================
Kusumlata Kumari, daughter of Shailendra Prasad, resident of Village -
Kirtipur Police Station- Parwalpur, District- Nalanda, at present wife of
Gautam Kumar, resident of Village Suhawanpura Sudhi, Ward No. 10, Block
and Police Station- Islampur, District - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social and Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda.
3. The District Programme Officer, Nalanda.
4. The Block Development Officer, Islampur, Nalanda.
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Islampur, Nalanda.
6. Rekha Kumari, Wife of Satyendra Prasad, Resident of Village Suhawanpura
Sudhi, Ward No. 10, Block and Police Station- Islampur, District - Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Lalit Kishore ( Ag )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-01-2022
This matter is heard via video conferencing due to
circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed
for the following reliefs:
"I. For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
for commanding and directing the respondent no.3 to
fix the date of Aam Sabha at an earliest.
II. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction for commanding and directing to the
respondents to make an enquiry of the panel prepared
Patna High Court CWJC No.9445 of 2020 dt.04-01-2022
for selection of Sewika under Ward No.10 in Sudhi
Panchayat under Islampur Block.
III. For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner
may be entitled to."
4. In the absence of representation or demand before the
competent authority, the petitioner is not entitled for a writ of
mandamus in the light of Apex Court decision in the case of Mani
Subrat Jain vs State of Haryana and Ors, reported in (1977) 1
SCC 486 held as under:
"9. The High Court rightly dismissed the
petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated
that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal
right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as
well as a legally protected right before one suffering a
legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can
be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a
legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do
something or to abstain from doing something (See
Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol. 1, paragraph
122; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha &
Ors. (1) Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar
Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. (2) and Ferris
Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198."
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of
reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned
authority in submitting representation/application for the purpose
Patna High Court CWJC No.9445 of 2020 dt.04-01-2022
of constitution of a Sabha and consequential relief sought in the
present petition.
6. If such representation is submitted within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the
concerned respondent is hereby directed to decide the petitioner's
representation/application within a period of one month from the
date of submission of petitioner's representation/application.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11 .01.2022
Transmission Date NA
