Poonam Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8053 of 2022 ====================================================== 1.
Poonam Kumari Wife of Sri Hare Ram Chaudhary, Resident of VillageBhamrupur, P.O.-Mohanpur, P.S. and District-Samastipur. 2.
Manoj Kumar Ram, Son of Late Lakshman Ram, Chini Mill Harijan Colony, Ward No. 10, P.O., P.S. and District-Samastipur. 3.
Rajesh Ram, son of Late Ashok Ram, Chini Mill Harijan Colony, Ward No. 10, P.O., P.S. and District-Samastipur.
4.
Vijay Kumar, Son of Sri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Resident of Lagunia Suryakanth, P.O.-Lagunia Suryakanth, Ward No. 5, P.S. and DistrictSamastipur. 5.
Raj Kumar Ram, Son of Sri Ganga Ram, Resident of Village-Dadhiya Belar, P.O.-Karpoori Gram, P.S. and District-Samastipur. 6.
Raj Kishore Prasad Verma, Son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad, Resident of Village and P.O.-Rampur, Dudhpura, P.S. and District-Samastipur. 7.
Shatrudhan Paswan, Son of Late Bangali Paswan, Resident of VillageDadhiya Belar, P.O.-Karpoori Gram, P.S. and District-Samastipur. 8.
Maheshwar Paswan, son of Late Ram Chandra Paswan, Resident of VillageChakabdul Gani, P.O.-Shambhupatti, P.S. and District-Samastipur. 9.
Arun Paswan, Son of Late Ram Swarth Paswan, Resident of Village and P.O.-Laguniyan Suryakanth, P.S. and District-Samastipur. 10.
Kapildeo Paswan, Son of Chalitar Paswan, Resident of Village and P.O.- Punas, P.S. and District-Samastipur.
11.
Saroj Kumar Paswan, Resident of Village-Pachrukhi, P.O.-Ratanpur Bela, P.S. and District-Samastipur.
12.
Indradeo Sahni, Son of Late Baldeo Sahni, Resident of Village and P.O.- Lagunia Suryakanth, Ward No. 15, P.S. and District-Samastipur. 13.
Kumud Devi, Wife of Sri Kanhaiyalal Thakur, Resident of VillageBhuidhara, Ward No. 14, P.O.-Dhurlakh, P.S. and District-Samastipur. 14.
Pramila Kumari @ Pramila Devi, Wife of Sri Birju Ram, Resident of Village-Thariya Belar, P.O.-Karpoori Gram, P.S. and District-Samastipur. 15.
Sushila Devi, Wife of Sri Raj Kumar Ray, Resident of Village and P.O.- Jitwarpur Nizamat, P.S. and District-Samastipur. 16.
Ram Karan Singh, son of Late Ramphal Singh @ Biro Singh, Resident of Village and P.O.-Laguniyan Suryakanth, Ward No. 6, P.S. and DistrictSamastipur. 17.
Geeta Kumari, D/o Late Gulab Ray, Resident of Village and P.O.-Mohanpur, P.S. and District-Samastipur.
18.
Manoj Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Sudama Singh, Resident of Village-Sirsa, P.O.-Dighwa Dubauli, P.S.-Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj. 19.
Meera Devi, Wife of Sri Anil Kumar, Resident of Village-Hakam Majhli Patti, P.O.-Hakam, P.S.-Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj. 20.
Vasanti Devi, Wife of Mokhtar Manjhi, Resident of Village and P.O.-Hakam, P.S.-Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj.
21.
Mahesh Manjhi, Son of Shamlal Manjhi, Resident of Village-Hakam Near
2/12 Road, P.O.-Hakam, P.S.-Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj. 22.
Indra Devi @ Indra Kumari, Wife of Sri Mahesh Singh, Resident of VillageDighwa Khajuhatti, P.O.-Khajuhatti, P.S.-Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj. 23.
Khalifa Ray, son of Sri Lochan Ray, Resident of Village and P.O.-Budhsi, P.S.-Sidhwaliya, District-Gopalganj.
24.
Harendra Kumar Pandey, Son of Shaligram Pandey, Resident of VillageKabirpur, P.O. and P.S.-Sidhwaliya, District-Gopalganj. 25.
Raj Kishore Mandal, Son of Ramavtar Sah, Resident of Village and P.O.- Budhsi, P.S.-Sidhwaliya, District-Gopalganj.
26.
Shatrughan Prasad, Resident of Village-Pakri, P.O. -Jhajhawan Bazar, P.S.- Sidhwaliya, District-Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2.
The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
3.
The Director, Mass Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bipin Bihari Singh For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Pawan Kumar ( Ac To Ag ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 22-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
3/12
4/12
5/12
6/12
7/12
3. 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 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
8/12 petitioner shall be filing within a period of four weeks from today.
4. 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.
5. Statement accepted and taken on record.
6. 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
9/12 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 established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted."
38. A salutary principle or a wellrecognised 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 2425)
10/12 "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."
7. As such, 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
11/12 filing along with a copy of this order;
(c) The order assigning reasons shall be communicated 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; (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 takes 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 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;
(j) The proceedings, during the time of current Pandemic- Covid-19 shall be conducted through digital mode,
12/12 unless the parties otherwise mutually agree to meet in person i.e. physical mode;
8. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
9. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) veena/rajivAFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date