Patna High Court
Bhushan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 24 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7421 of 2022
======================================================
1. Bhushan Singh Son of Late Shiv Kumar Singh, Resident of Village
Kanchanpur, PS- Bihta, District- Patna.
2. Alok Kumar, Son of Late Satendra Singh Resident of Kanchanpur
(Kharagpur), PS- Bihta, District- Patna.
3. Vikash Kumar Son of Sri Anand Kishore Singh Resident of Village
Kanchanpur, PS- Bihta, District- Patna.
4. Kamlavati Devi Wife of Saroj Kumar Resident of Village Kanchanpur, PS-
Bihta, District- Patna.
5. Ranju Singh @ Ranju Suraj Singh Wife of Suraj Singh Resident of Village-
Kanchanpur, PS- Bihta, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Foods and Consumer
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Patna.
3. The Co-operative Department through its Principal Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Co-operative Officer, Patna.
5. The Block Co-operative Officer, PS- Bihta, Patna.
6. Block Agricultural Officer, PS- Bihta, Patna.
7. The Sub Divisional Officer, PS- Danapur, District- Patna.
8. Kanchanpur (Kharagpur) PACS through its Chairman, PS- Bihta, Patna.
9. Raghavpur PACS through its Chairman, PO and PS- Bihta, Patna.
10. Mushepur PACS through its Chairman, PO and PS- Bihta, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.S. Raza Ahmad ( AAG 5 )
======================================================
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 : 24-06-2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7421 of 2022 dt.24-06-2022
Petitioners have prayed for following relief:-
Learned counsel for the State opposes the petition
stating that the petition is misconceived; raises disputed
question of fact; is not in public interest; and that the issue can
be best resolved at the local level by the appropriate authorities.
After the matter was heard for some time, finding
Patna High Court CWJC No.7421 of 2022 dt.24-06-2022
the Bench not to be agreeable with the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the
petitioners, under instructions, states that petitioners shall be
content if a direction is issued to the respondent no.3, The Co-
operative Department through its Principal Secretary, Bihar, Patna to
consider and decide the representation which the petitioners
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 petitioners, 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:-
"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)
Patna High Court CWJC No.7421 of 2022 dt.24-06-2022
"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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7421 of 2022 dt.24-06-2022
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)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.'
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 on the following
terms:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.7421 of 2022 dt.24-06-2022
(a) Petitioners 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 petitioners;
(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 petitioners to take
recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available
in accordance with law;
(g) We are hopeful that as and when petitioners take
recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law,
before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in
accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch;
(h) Liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7421 of 2022 dt.24-06-2022
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;
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
( S. Kumar, J)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.06.2022
Transmission Date NA
