Patna High Court

Diwakar Ray vs The State Of Bihar on 5 May, 2022

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6210 of 2022
     ======================================================

1. Diwakar Ray Son of Radhe Prasad Ray, Resident of At. Sajour, P.O. -

Sajour, P.S. - Sajour, District - Bhagalpur.

2. Bijay Kumar Mandal Son of Late Sitabi Mandal, Resident of At. Dariyapur, P.O. - Dariyapur, P.S. - Sajour, District - Bhagalpur.

3. Prem Shankar Kumar Son of Ramrup Prasad Singh, Resident of At.

Rajanpur, P.O.- Dariyapur, P.S. - Sajour, District - Bhagalpur.

4. Sunil Kumar Chaurasiya Son of Sri Sukdeo Singh, Resident of At.

Dariyapur, P.O. - Dariyapur, P.S. - Sajour, District - Bhagalpur.

5. Rajendra Sah Son of Sri Ganesh Prasad Sah, Resident of At. - Dariyapur, P.O.- Dariyapur, P.S. - Sajour, District- Bhagalpur.

6. Bhola Shankar Goswami Son of Chotelal Goswami, Resident of At.

Gourachouki, P.O.- Gourachouki, P.S. Kajraili, District - Bhagalpur.

7. Satish Kumar Panday Son of Ramprawesh Panday, Resident of At.

Mahendra Bhawan Nayabazar Road near Anchal Bhawan Golaghat, P.O.- Nayabazar, P.S. - Kotwali, District- Bhagalpur.

8. Vijay Rajak Son of Late Chamaru Rajak, Resident of At. Ishakchak, P.O.

Ishakchak, P.S. - Ishakchak, District - Bhagalpur.

9. Jay Shree Devi @ Jay Shree Kumari Wife of Shree Walil Pawan, Resident of At. Kumrath, P.O. Simariya, P.S. Kajraaili, District - Bhagalpur.

10. Nirmala Devi @ Nirmala Kumari Wife of Surendra Prasad Singh, Resident of At. Batuachak, P.O. Bhatoriya, P.S. Madhusudhanpur, District - Bhagalpur.

11. Anita Devi Wife of Arvind Prasad Yadav, Resident of At. Katahara, P.O. Katahara, P.S. Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur.

12. Abesh Kumar Son of Keshav Prasad Yadav Resident of At. Balam Ward No 6, P.O. Balam, P.S. Madhepura, District - Madhepura.

13. Md. Mohmmad Taukir Alam Son of - Md. Juvair Uddin, Resident of At. Akbaaarpur, P.O. Barh, P.S. Barh, District- Patna.

14. Rabindra Kumar Son of Rambilash Rajak, Resident of At. Balam Ward no. 7, P.O. Balam, P.S.- Madhepura, District- Madhepura.

15. Sandhya Kumari Wife of Brajendra Narayan Shukala, Resident of At., Vill and P.O. - Bareja, District - Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resource development cum Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Mass Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Patna High Court CWJC No.6210 of 2022 dt.05-05-2022

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Shilpa Singh, GP-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 05-05-2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):- Patna High Court CWJC No.6210 of 2022 dt.05-05-2022

Patna High Court CWJC No.6210 of 2022 dt.05-05-2022

After the matter was heard for some time,

finding the Bench not to be agreeable with the submissions

made across the Bar, more so, on account of delay and

laches, learned counsel for the petitioners, under Patna High Court CWJC No.6210 of 2022 dt.05-05-2022

instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present

petition reserving liberty to approach the Respondent No. 3,

namely the Director, Mass Education, Government of Bihar,

Patna by filing a representation venting out his grievance,

subject matter of the present lis, which the petitioners shall

be filing within a period of four weeks from today.

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] Patna High Court CWJC No.6210 of 2022 dt.05-05-2022

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 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.6210 of 2022 dt.05-05-2022

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 Patna High Court CWJC No.6210 of 2022 dt.05-05-2022

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, as mutually prayed for, petition stands

disposed of in the following terms:-

(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;

communicated to the petitioners;

(d) Needless to add, while considering such

representation, principles of natural justice shall be