Patna High Court

M/S Sandip Furniture And Saw Mill vs The State Of Bihar on 29 January, 2022

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18046 of 2021
     ======================================================

M/s Sandip Furniture and Saw Mill Saur Dariyapur, P.S. Warisaliganj, District- Nawada, a propritorship firm through its Proprietor Sandip Kumar, Aged about 34 years (Male), Son of Sri Bindeshwar Mistri, Resident of Village- Saur Dariyapur, P.S.- Warsaliganj, District- Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chairman of State Level Committee for Wood- based Industries, Bihar, Patna, Bihar, Patna-cum- Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar.

3. The Licensing Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Nawada Forest Division, Nawada.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Mistry, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sarvesh Kr. Singh (AAG-13) ====================================================== 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 by Hon'ble the Chief Justice/ Hon'ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their residential offices/residences. Also, the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.)

Date : 29-01-2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s).

"(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 - Chairman of State Level Committee for Wood-

based Industries, Bihar to dispose of the petition dated 29.06.2021 (Annexure-3) filed by the petitioner for grant of license under Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 in terms of the order dated 5.10.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition Patna High Court CWJC No.18046 of 2021 dt.29-01-2022

(Civil) No. 202 of 1995 as the State of Bihar vide Memo No. 406 dated 3.12.2015 has already constituted State Level Committee under the Chairmanship of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar.

(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till the disposal of the petition dated 29.06.2021 in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) For issuance of such other writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

3. 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. 2, the Chairman of State Level Committee

for Wood- based Industries, Bihar, Patna, Bihar, Patna-cum-

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, 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).

4. 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.18046 of 2021 dt.29-01-2022

filing along with a copy of this order.

5. 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:-

"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 Patna High Court CWJC No.18046 of 2021 dt.29-01-2022

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 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, Patna High Court CWJC No.18046 of 2021 dt.29-01-2022

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."

6. 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;