Patna High Court - Orders
Gyanesh Pal vs The Union Of India on 25 March, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, S. Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4157 of 2022
======================================================
Gyanesh Pal S/o Sri Krishna Mohan Prasad Resident of Fashion Mart,
Lakshmi Chowk, Brahmapura, M.I.T. P.S.-Brahmapura, Distt-Muzaffarpur,
Bihar, Pin-842003.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Govt. of
India, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-
110003.
3. The Computer Emergency Response Team India (CERT-IN), Ministry of
Electronics and Information Technology, Govt. of India, Electronics
Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
4. The Home Secretary, Ministry of Affairs, Govt. of India, Jai Singh Marg,
Hanuman Road Area, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
5. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar. Patna.
7. The Additional Director General of Police, State Crime Records Nureau
(SCRB), Sri Sai Tara Complex, IAS Coloney, Bailey Road, Patna-800001.
8. The Inspector General of Police, State Crime Records Bureau (SCRB), Sri
Sai Tara Complex, IAS Colony, Bailey Road, Patna-800001.
9. The CEO, Google India Pvt. Limited, No.3 RMZ Infinity-Tower-E, 4th and
5th Floor, OLd Madras Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560016, Email-APAC-
[email protected]
10. The CEO, PUBG India Pvt. Ltd., 5A119 @we work we work galaxy#43,
Residency Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560025, Email-legal-
[email protected].
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prashant Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG
Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Patna High Court CWJC No.4157 of 2022(2) dt.25-03-2022
2/8
(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon'ble the Chief
Justice/Hon'ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their
residential offices/residences. Also the Advocates and the Staffs joined the
proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.)
2 25-03-2022Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):
"(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) thereby directing the respondents to constitute a Special Investigating Team (SIT) with cyber cell of the state to investigate, probe and book the individuals of the gaming community namely Fishing websites, Carders and the Scammers who are indulged in siphoning of the public money and their secret Data informations who thereby use the said money to buy in-game purchases and for selling it to the youtubers and for doing superchats to their youtube channel.
(ii) For further directing the respondents to set the law in motion against such scammers of the Indian Gaming Community and by way of Fast Track Hearing of such cases, secure their conviction under the IT Act and under other penal provisions available in any other Act/Rules in the competent court of law.
(iii) For further issuance of
appropriate writ(s) thereby directing for
temporary suspension and subsequently
permanent ban of Battlegrounds Mobile India (BGMI) formerly known as PUBG to stop and ensure the prohibition of such Gaming Patna High Court CWJC No.4157 of 2022(2) dt.25-03-2022 3/8 Community scams.
(iv) For directing the Respondents particularly the Respondent nos 2 and 3 to frame and implement Regulatory provisions for the Gaming Community and for suspension of social media handles of the accused scammers to secure the check on the biggest scam of the Indian Gaming Community which is approximately of Rs. One Hundred Crores in the State of Bihar only.
(v) For grant of any other relief or reliefs which the petitioner may be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
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 authorities.
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).
Patna High Court CWJC No.4157 of 2022(2) dt.25-03-2022 4/8 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, (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."
Patna High Court CWJC No.4157 of 2022(2) dt.25-03-2022 5/8
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 needs to be kept in mind before Patna High Court CWJC No.4157 of 2022(2) dt.25-03-2022 6/8 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. 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.8, namely The Inspector Patna High Court CWJC No.4157 of 2022(2) dt.25-03-2022 7/8 General of Police, State Crime Records Bureau (SCRB), Sri Sai Tara Complex, IAS Colony, Bailey Road, Patna-800001within 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 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 petitioner to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law;
(g) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes Patna High Court CWJC No.4157 of 2022(2) dt.25-03-2022 8/8 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 petitioner 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, unless the parties otherwise mutually agree to meet in person i.e. physical mode;
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) K.C.Jha/DKS U