Matters that are directed against one organisation or individual should not be entertained or be rarely entertained by PIL: High Court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.29322 Banshi Dhar Brajwasi S o Sri Nand Kishore Sahani R o Village Raksha South) P.S. Karja District Muzaffarpur Presently working as State President Parivartankari Prarambhik Sikshak Sangh Bihar ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Education Department Bihar Patna The Principal Secretary Education Department Bihar Patna The Director Primary Education Education Department Bihar Patna The Director State Education Project Council Bihar Patna The Collector Muzaffarpur The District Education Officer Muzaffarpur The District Program Officer Establishment Muzaffarpur The District Program Officer Sarv Siksha AbhiyanMuzaffarpur The Block Development Officer Minapur Muzaffarpur 10. The Block Education Officer Minapur Muzaffarpur ... Respondent s Mr.Manoj Kumar Manoj Advocate Mr.Smt. Shilpa Singhto the extent of amalgamation of Primary School Kharhar Anusuchit Jati from Govt. Elevated Middle School Chapra Anusuchit Jati issued by Respondent no. 10 and further commanding the Respondents for running the School namely Primary School Kharhar Anusuchit Jati separately in light of availability of donated land by the public of the Area for the said Primary School Kharhar Anusuchit Jati in Block Minapur by further directing them for construction of school building for running the said school smoothly.” Learned counsel for the State opposes the petition stating that the petition is misconceived raises disputed question of fact is not in public interest and that the issue can be best resolved at the local level by the appropriate 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 i.e Respondent No. 6 the District Education Officer Muzaffarpur) to consider and decide the representation which Patna High Court CWJC No.29322 dt.11 03 2022 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. N. Jeevaraj Vs Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka & Ors 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 SuppSCC 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.29322 dt.11 03 2022 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 Trust3 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 individualought 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 2 SCC 150: 2004 SCC363] that SCC p. 160 paras 12 13 Mandamus literally means a command. The essence of mandamus in England was that it was a royal command issued by the King 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 2 SCC 630] in the following words: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 terms: As such petition stands disposed of in the following a) Petitioner 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.29322 dt.11 03 2022 within a period of four months from the date of its filing along with a copy of this order c) Needless to add while considering such representation principles of natural justice shall be followed and due opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties d) Equally liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law e) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner 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 Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court should the need so arise subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action issues are left open g) We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All h) The proceedings during the time of current Pandemic Covid 19 shall be conducted through digital mode unless the parties otherwise mutually agree to meet in person i.e. physical mode The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Patna High Court CWJC No.29322 dt.11 03 2022 Interlocutory Application(s) if any stands disposed of. Sanjay Karol CJ) ( S. Kumar J

Summary: 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 ought not to be entertained or should be rarely entertained. Other remedies are also available to public spirited litigants, they should be encouraged to avail of such remedies and the same was upheld by High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by JUSTICE S. KUMAR in the case of Banshi Dhar Brajwasi vs. The State of Bihar [Case No.2935 of 2022] on 11.03.2022. The facts of the case are that an application was issued commanding the Respondents for setting aside the amalgamation of Primary School, Kharhar Anusuchit Jati from Govt. Elevated Middle School Chapra, Anusuchit Jati issued by Respondent no. 10 and further commanding the Respondents for running the School namely Primary School Kharhar Anusuchit Jati separately in light of availability of donated land by the public of the Area for the said Primary School, Kharhar Anusuchit Jati, by further directing them for construction of school building for running the said school smoothly. The respondent’s counsel stated 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. It was stated that while considering such representation, principles of natural justice shall be followed and due opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties. The state’s counsel opposes the petition stating that the petition is misconceived, raises disputed question of fact, is not in public interest and that the issue and can be best resolved at the local level by the appropriate authorities. The Court held that petitioner shall approach the authority concerned within a period of four weeks from today by filing a representation for redressal of the grievances and therefore, the petition was disposed. 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. The Court observed that, “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 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. 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.”