Patna High Court

Yogendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 23 January, 2023

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5302 of 2018
     ======================================================

Yogendra Kumar Singh son of Late Subh Dayal Singh Resident of Mohalla - Maranpur Devi Asthan, P.O. - Chand Chaura, P.S. - Vishnupad, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandary and Fisheries Deptt.,Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.

4. The District Animal Husbandary Officer, Gaya.

5. The District Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya.

6. The Block Development Officer, Gaya.

7. The Circle Officer, Gaya.

8. The Corporation Bank through its Branch Manager, IGB Road Branch, Gaya.

9. The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, IGB Road Branch, Gaya.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Praveen, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam- AAG 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 23-01-2023

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

"A) For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to quash/set aside the memo no.11/Gaya, dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure) issued by the District Animal Husbandary Officer Gaya (Respondent no.4) by which he has rejected the petitioner's application dated 24.05.2018(Annexure-) for release of subsidy.

B) For direction to the Respondent authorities to immediately release the subsidy amount in the loan account of petitioner (AGTL-150004) the said loan Patna High Court CWJC No.5302 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

account has been opened on the recommendation and approval of the respondent no.4 under integrated animal development project in the year 2014-15. C) For direction to the respondent no.4 to produce the entire records related with the subsidy under "Samagra Gavya Vikas Yojana" for the financial year 2014-15. D) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to fix the responsibility and accountability of the person concern who is responsible for not releasing the subsidy amount within time and for direction to make payment of compensation and cost to the petitioner by the person concern, for his ignorance and laches resulting tremendous financial burden on the petitioner.

E) For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the present case."

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 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

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. Patna High Court CWJC No.5302 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

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 Jeevaraj was impleaded) Patna High Court CWJC No.5302 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

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 Patna High Court CWJC No.5302 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

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:-

(a) Petitioner shall approach the authority concerned

i.e. Respondent No. 2, namely The Principal

Secretary, Animal Husbandary and Fisheries

Deptt.,Govt. of Bihar, Patna 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.5302 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

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;

to the petitioner;

(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;