Patna High CourtGirja Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 5 December, 2022Bench:Chief Justice,Partha SarthyIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14990 of 2019\n     ======================================================\n     Girja Devi, Wife of Late Baidyanath Pandey, residing at C/o Shaibal Sahay,\n     House No. 80, near Arbind College, Navjivan Vihar, Malviya Nagar, South\n     Delhi.\n\n                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s\n                                          Versus\n1.   The State of Bihar\n2.   Principal Secretary Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.\n3.   The Director General of Police, Patna.\n4.   Superintendent of Police, Saran.\n5.   District Certificate Officer, Chappra, Saran\n\n                                               ... ... Respondent/s\n     ======================================================\n     Appearance :\n     For the Petitioner/s   :         Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate\n     For the Respondent/s   :         Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad ( SC8 )\n                                      Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.C. to S.C.8\n     ======================================================\n     CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\n             and\n             HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY\n     ORAL JUDGMENT(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)\n\n      Date : 05-12-2022\n\n                    Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):"That this petition is being filed for quashing of\n                     the letter dated 16.08.05 (after calling it from\n                     respondents) sent by S.P. Saran at Chapra for recovery\n                     of Rs.9263=00 as Govt. dues for providing bodyguard\n                     to her for the period 13.6.2001 to 15.10.2001, and also\n                     for quashing Certificate notice underPublic Demand\n                     Recovery Actwith threatening to send in Civil prison."After the matter was heard for some time, finding\n\n      the Bench not to be agreeable with the submissions made by\n Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2019 dt.05-12-20222/6learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the\n\n         petitioner, under instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the\n\n         present petition reserving liberty to approach Respondent No. 5,\n\n         namely District Certificate Officer, Chhapra, Saran venting out\n\n         the grievances, subject matter of the present petition.Liberty, as prayed for, is granted.The Hon'ble Supreme Court inD. N. Jeevaraj Vs.\n\n         Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2\n\n         SCC 653, paragraphs 34 to 38 observed as under:-"34. The learned counsel for the parties\n                         addressed us on the question of the bona fides of\n                         Nagalaxmi Bai in filing a public interest litigation.\n                         We leave this question open and do not express any\n                         opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the\n                         decision of the High Court in this regard.35. However, we note that generally\n                         speaking, procedural technicalities ought to take a\n                         back seat in public interest litigation. This Court held\n                         in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State\n                         of U.P. [Rural Litigation andEntitlement Kendra v.\n                         State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] to this effect\n                         as follows: (SCC p. 515, para 16)\n\n                                      "16. The writ petitions before us are not\n                                 inter parties disputes and have been raised by\n                                 way of public interest litigation and the\n                                 controversy before the court is as to whether\n                                 for social safety and for creating a hazardless\n                                 environment for the people to live in, mining\n                                 in the area should be permitted or stopped.\n                                 We may not be taken to have said that for\n                                 public interest litigations, procedural laws do\n                                 not apply. At the same time it has to be\n                                 remembered that every technicality in the\n                                 procedural law is not available as a defence\n                                 when a matter of grave public importance is\n                                 for consideration before the court."Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2019 dt.05-12-20223/636. A considerable amount has been said\n                         about public interest litigation inR&M Trust [R&M\n                         Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group,\n                         (2005) 3 SCC 91] and it is not necessary for us to\n                         dwell any further on this except to say that in issues\n                         pertaining to good governance, the courts ought to\n                         be somewhat more liberal in entertaining public\n                         interest litigation. However, in matters that may not\n                         be of moment or a litigation essentially directed\n                         against one organisation or individual (such as the\n                         present litigation which was directed only against\n                         Sadananda Gowda and later Jeevaraj was impleaded)\n                         ought not to be entertained or should be rarely\n                         entertained. Other remedies are also available to\n                         public spirited litigants and they should be\n                         encouraged to avail of such remedies.37.In such cases, that might not strictly fall\n                         in the category of public interest litigation and for\n                         which other remedies are available, insofar as the\n                         issuance of a writ of mandamus is concerned, this\n                         Court held inUnion of India v. S.B. Vohra [Union of\n                         Indiav. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150: 2004 SCC\n                         (L&S) 363] that: (SCC p. 160, paras 12-13)\n\n                                       "12. Mandamus literally means a\n                                 command. The essence of mandamus in\n                                 England was that it was a royal command\n                                 issued by the King's Bench (now Queen's\n                                 Bench) directing performance of a public\n                                 legal duty.13. A writ of mandamus is issued in\n                                 favour of a person who establishes a legal\n                                 right in himself. A writ of mandamus is issued\n                                 against a person who has a legal duty to\n                                 perform but has failed and/or neglected to do\n                                 so. Such a legal duty emanates from either in\n                                 discharge of a public duty or by operation of\n                                 law. The writ of mandamus is of a most\n                                 extensive remedial nature. The object of\n                                 mandamus is to prevent disorder from a\n                                 failure of justice and is required to be granted\n                                 in all cases where law has established no\n                                 specific remedy and whether justice despite\n                                 demanded has not been granted."38. A salutary principle or a well-recognised rule that needs to be kept in mind before\n Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2019 dt.05-12-20224/6issuing a writ of mandamus was stated in Saraswati\n                         Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India\n                         [Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of\n                         India, (1974) 2 SCC 630] in the following words:(SCC pp. 641-42, paras 24-25)\n\n                                          "24. ... The powers of the High Court\n                                 underArticle 226are not strictly confined to\n                                 the limits to which proceedings for\n                                 prerogative writs are subject in English\n                                 practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised\n                                 rule that no writ or order in the nature of a\n                                 mandamus would issue when there is no\n                                 failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in\n                                 this country as well. Even in cases of alleged\n                                 breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary\n                                 general rule, which is subject to certain\n                                 exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England,\n                                 when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could\n                                 be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's\n                                 Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 11, p. 106:'198. Demand for performance must\n                                 precede application.--As a general rule the\n                                 order will not be granted unless the party\n                                 complained of has known what it was he was\n                                 required to do, so that he had the means of\n                                 considering whether or not he should comply,\n                                 and it must be shown by evidence that there\n                                 was a distinct demand of that which the party\n                                 seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and\n                                 that that demand was met by a refusal.'25. In the cases before us there was no\n                                 such demand or refusal. Thus, no ground\n                                 whatsoever is shown here for the issue of any\n                                 writ, order, or direction underArticle 226of\n                                 the Constitution."As such, petition stands disposed of as withdrawn\n\n         with the following directions/observations/liberty:-(a) Petitioner shall approach the authority concerned\n\n                         i.e. Respondent No.5, namely District Certificate\n Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2019 dt.05-12-20225/6Officer, Chhapra, Saran within a period of four\n\n                          weeks from today by filing a representation for\n\n                          redressal of the grievance(s);(b) The authority concerned shall consider and dispose\n\n                          it of expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking\n\n                          order preferably within a period of four months\n\n                          from the date of its filing along with a copy of this\n\n                          order;(c) The order assigning reasons shall be communicated\n\n                          to the petitioner;(d)    Needless      to       add,   while   considering   such\n\n                          representation, principles of natural justice shall be\n\n                          followed and due opportunity of hearing afforded\n\n                          to the parties;(e) Also, opportunity to place on record all relevant\n\n                          materials/documents shall be granted to the parties;(f) Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take\n\n                          recourse to such alternative remedies as are\n\n                          otherwise available in accordance with law;(g) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes\n\n                          recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise\n\n                          available in law, before the appropriate forum, the\n              Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2019 dt.05-12-20226/6same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law\n\n                                      and with reasonable dispatch;(h) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the\n\n                                      appropriate forum/Court, should the need so arise\n\n                                      subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of\n\n                                      action;(i) We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All\n\n                                      issues are left open;(j) The proceedings shall be conducted through digital\n\n                                      mode, unless the parties otherwise mutually agree\n\n                                      to meet in person i.e. physical mode;The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn in the\n\n                      aforesaid terms.Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand\n\n                      disposed of.(Sanjay Karol, CJ)\n\n\n                                                  ( Partha Sarthy, J)\nSaurabh/-AFR/NAFR\nCAV DATE\nUploading Date          07.12.2022\nTransmission Date