Kanchan Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13780 of 2022 ====================================================== 1.
Kanchan Devi Wife of Rahul Kumar, Resident of Village - Kulna, Police Station and Block - Akbarpur, District - Nawadah. 2.
Rauki Kumar Son of Pawan Kumar, Resident of Village - Kulna, Police Station and Block - Akbarpur, District - Nawadah. 3.
Sonu Kumar, Son of Arbind Singh, Resident of Village - Kulna, Police Station and Block - Akbarpur, District - Nawadah. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.
The District Magistrate, Nawadah.
3.
The District Co-operative Officer, Nawadah.
4.
The Block Co-operative Extension Officer, Akbarpur, District- Nawadah. 5.
The Block Development Officer, Akbarpur, District - Nawadah. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Manoj Kr. Ambastha (S.C.26) ====================================================== 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 : 16-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):- "1. That the present writ application has been filed by way of Public Interest Litigation for a direction upon the Respondent No. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Nawadah to look into the affairs of concerned Respondent No. 3 and 4 who are indulged in interfering in the decision taken by Managing Committee of the concerned Kulna PACS under which since 2016 to 2021 altogether 389 bonafide members of
2/7 Kulna PACS have been made after following all the prescribed norms and after completion of tenure of Managing Committee for purpose of fresh election draft publication of voter list has been done under the signature of Respondent No. 3 and 4 including 1225 earlier member voters in Prapatra "K" and altogether 389 members have been included in Prapatra "Kh" but at the instance of some vested interest persons in collusion with Respondent No. 3 and 4 are trying to not add the 389 members in final voter list without any valid reason only with a view to get mileage in ensuing PACS election and interested that 389 members included in Draft Publication may not be included in final publication of voter list and in this regard petitioners in representative capacity has filed the representative before Respondent No. 2 for inclusion of at least 389 bonafide members so that they may cast their votes in future PACS election and may get the benefit of schemes of Respondent State run through PACS.
Any other order/orders for granting any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case." 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
3/7 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 established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted."
38. A salutary principle or a well-recognised rule that
4/7 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.
'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.'
5/7
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."
After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners, under instructions, states that petitioners shall be content if a direction is issued to the respondent no. 2, The District Magistrate, Nawadah 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.
As such, petition stands disposed of on 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);
6/7 (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 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 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 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
7/7 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) Rajiv/veenaAFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date