Patna High Court
Dr. Amit Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 2 December, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16479 of 2022
======================================================
Dr. Amit Kumar Singh, Son of Ajit Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-
Mohiuddin Nagar, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Principal Secretary, Department of
Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur.
3. Teh Sub Divisional Officer, Samastipur.
4. The Circle Officer Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
5. Bisto Sah Son of Late Ram Khelawan Sah, Resident of Village- Karim
Nagar, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
6. Ranjan Sah Son of Late Kisto Sah, Resident of Karim Nagar, P.S.-
Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
7. Sanjeet Sah Son of Late Kisto Sah, Resident of Karim Nagar, P.S.-
Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
8. Santosh Sah Son of Late Kisto Sah, Resident of Karim Nagar, P.S.-
Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
9. Vishnudhari Ray Son of Late Jamun Ray, Resident of Mogal Chak, P.S.-
Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
10. Rajendra Sharma Son of Late Ram Sevak Sharma, Resident of Village-
Hasni, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
11. Anil Sah Son of Late Anant Sah, Resident of Village- Kali Aasthan,
Mohiuddin Nagar, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
12. Nand Kumar Son of Ram Dayal Ray, Resident of Village- Kumaiya, P.S.-
Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
13. Ram Udalak Sah Son of Late Manir Sah, Resident of Village- Mogal Chak,
P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
14. Dhruv Sah Son of Late Laxmi Sah, Resident of Village- Kali Asthan,
Mohiuddin Nager, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
15. Ganeshi Sah Son of Late Bachche Sah, Resident of Village- Mahmadpur,
P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
16. Pankaj Sah Son of Late Ram Udgar Sah, Resident of Village- Mogal Chak,
P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
17. Vijay Kumar Sah Son of Late Ram Chandra Sah, Resident of Village- Kali
Asthan, Mohiuddin Nagar, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
18. Ramesh Choudhary Son of Ashok Choudhary, Resident of Village- Mogal
Chak, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
19. Jagdish Ray Son of Late Gena Ray, Resident of Village- Mogal Chak, P.S.-
Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16479 of 2022 dt.02-12-2022
2/8
20. Ram Pravesh Ray Son of Late Gena Ray, Resident of Village- Mogal Chak,
P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
21. Sanjay Sah Son of Late Shankar Sah, Resident of Village- Karim Nagar,
P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
22. Dharmendra Thakur Son of Krishna Thakur, Resident of Village- Mohiuddin
Nagar, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
23. Ajit Sah Son of Laxmi Sah, Resident of Village- Kumaiya, P.S.- Mohiuddin
Nagar, District- Samastipur.
24. Sunil Thakur Son of Krishna Thakur, Resident of Village- Kali Asthan,
Mohiuddin Nagar, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
25. Ram Chandra Ray Son of Manu Ray, Resident of Village- Mogal Chak, P.S.-
Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
26. Ram Nath Sah Son of Ram Jatan Sah, Resident of Village- Mahmadpur,
P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
27. Ram Pukar Mahto Son of Mahendra Mahto, Resident of Village- Karim
Nagar, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
28. Ajad Choudhary Son of Late Munna Choudhary, Resident of Village- Karim
Nagar, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
29. Sakindar Ray Son of Late Dohan Ray, Resident of Village- Mogal Chak,
P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
30. Sita Ram Sahani Son of Late Shivdhari Sahani, Resident of Village-
Mogalchak Manjha, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
31. Rajesh Kumar @Pappu Ram Son of Late Nawal Kishore Prasad @ Nawal
Ram, Resident of Village- Mohiuddin Nagar, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar,
District- Samastipur.
32. Ram Udgar Ray Son of Jagat Narayan Ray, Resident of Village- Mogal
Chak, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
33. Laxmi Ray Son of Late Singheshwar Ray, Resident of Village- Mogal Chak,
P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
34. Ram Uddeshya Ray Son of Late Satyanarayan Ray, Resident of Village-
Mogal Chak, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
35. Baleshwar Ray Son of Late Ram Pukar Ray, Resident of Village- Mogal
Chak, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
36. Ram Naresh Choudhary Son of Late Kedar Choudhary, Resident of Village-
Chakla, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
37. Satish Sah Son of Vishwanath Sah, Resident of Beech Bazar, Mohiuddin
Nagar, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
38. Hiralal Sah Son of Late Yugeshwar Sah, Resident of Village- Karim Nagar,
P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
39. Sunil Sah Son of Ramvir Sah, Resident of Village- Mogal Chak, P.S.-
Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
40. Manoj Sah Son of Yugeshwar Sah, Resident of Village- Karim Nagar, P.S.-
Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16479 of 2022 dt.02-12-2022
3/8
41. Anant Kumar Singh Son of Late Markandey Singh, Resident of Village-
Jaunapur Matiaur, P.S.- Patory, District- Samastipur.
42. Chunnu Singh Son of Ram Chandra Singh, Resident of Village- Rajpur
Jaunapur, P.S. Patory, District- Samastipur.
43. Rajeev Kumar Singh Son of Ram Chandra Singh, Resident of Village-
Rajpur Jaunapur, P.S. Patory, District- Samastipur.
44. Satish Kumar Ray Son of Upendra Ray, Resident of Village- Manjha, P.S.-
Patory, District- Samastipur.
45. The Bihar Rajya Dharmik Nyas Parshad, Vidyapati Marg, Patna.
46. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur.
47. S.H.O., Mohiuddin Nagar, Samastipur.
48. The Inspector General of Police, Mithila Range, Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Pathak, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Manish Kumar ( G.P. 4 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 02-12-2022 petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) : -
i. For issuance of writ/writs in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to immediately release the Govt. land (HINDU Religious Trust Baord, Patna), which has been illegally encroached by the Respondent No. 5 to 44. ii. For commanding the Respondents as to why the Respondent No. 5 to 44 has encroached the public land which has been illegally possessed by themselves.
iii. For any other writ/ writs, direction/ directions, order/ orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper as the facts and circumstances of this case.
After the matter was heard for some time, finding Patna High Court CWJC No.16479 of 2022 dt.02-12-2022 4/8 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).
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 three 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) Patna High Court CWJC No.16479 of 2022 dt.02-12-2022 5/8 "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."
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 Patna High Court CWJC No.16479 of 2022 dt.02-12-2022 6/8 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 [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:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.16479 of 2022 dt.02-12-2022 7/8
(a) Petitioner shall approach respondent No.2, namely, the District Magistrate, Samastipur and respondent No. 45, namely, the Bihar Rajya Dharmik Nyas Parshad, Vidyapati Marg, Patna, 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 three 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 recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available Patna High Court CWJC No.16479 of 2022 dt.02-12-2022 8/8 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 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, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( Partha Sarthy, J) K.C.Jha/chn AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 04.12.2022 Transmission Date