Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)
  • /s : Mr. Rajnish Chandra, Advocate
  • /s : Mr. Satya Vrat, AC to G.P. 10
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice PavanKumar Bhimappa Bajanthri
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)
  • /s : Mr. Rajnish Chandra, Advocate
  • /s : Mr. Satya Vrat, AC to G.P. 10
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice PavanKumar Bhimappa Bajanthri
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Judgment Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner sought a writ directing the respondent authority to make a proper enquiry/investigation into work done in Rangra Panchayat by the Ward member and other agencies under the control of the Mukhiya of Rangra Panchayat, and to direct completion of work done in the last five years. The matter was heard by Sanjay Karol, C.J. After hearing, under instructions, the petitioner agreed to be content with a direction that the authority consider and decide a representation which the petitioner would file. The respondents undertook that, if a representation were filed, the authority would consider and dispose of it expeditiously and preferably within four months. The Court recorded these statements and disposed of the petition with specific directions.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a writ should be issued directing the respondent authority to make an enquiry/investigation into work done in Rangra Panchayat and to direct completion of the work done in the last five years, as prayed by the petitioner.
  2. Whether the grievance should instead be addressed by directing the petitioner to file a representation and requiring the authority to consider and decide that representation within a specified time-frame.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Under instructions, the petitioner stated they would be content if the Court issued a direction to the authority to consider and decide the representation which the petitioner would file within four weeks from the date of the order for redressal of the grievance(s).

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondents' counsel stated that if such a representation were filed by the petitioner, the authority concerned would consider and dispose of it expeditiously and preferably within four months from the date of its filing, if filed along with a copy of the Court's order.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
D.N. Jeevaraj v. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, (2016) 2 SCC 653 Noted that procedural technicalities should generally take a back seat in public interest litigation; the Court left the question of bona fides open in that case. The Court cited these observations to frame the approach towards public interest litigation and procedural flexibility while dealing with the petition before it.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 Held that while procedural laws apply to PILs, not every procedural technicality can be used as a defence when matters of grave public importance are before the court. The Court relied on this principle to underline that procedural considerations may be moderated in appropriate public interest contexts when deciding how to proceed in the present matter.
R&M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91 Observed that in issues pertaining to good governance courts should be somewhat more liberal in entertaining PILs, but matters directed only against an individual or organization should be rarely entertained and alternative remedies should be considered. The Court referenced this authority to support a restrained approach where alternative remedies are available, informing its decision to direct administrative consideration rather than issuing coercive writ relief.
Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150 Explained the nature of mandamus: it is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right and against a person who has a legal duty to perform but has failed; mandamus prevents disorder from failure of justice where no specific remedy is established by law. The Court relied on this description of mandamus to contextualize the proper circumstances for issuing such a writ and to justify directing administrative consideration rather than immediate issuance of mandamus.
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630 Stated the well-recognised rule that no writ in the nature of mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty; demand for performance must generally precede application for mandamus. The Court invoked this salutary principle to support the requirement that the petitioner file a representation (a demand) and to justify not issuing a mandamus at this stage without such a demand and consideration by the authority.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court heard learned counsel for the parties and reviewed relevant Supreme Court authorities addressing the scope of public interest litigation and the circumstances under which writs of mandamus may be issued. The opinion recounts authorities emphasizing that:

  • Procedural technicalities should generally give way in appropriate public interest litigation, but not every matter qualifies as a PIL warranting relaxed procedural rules.
  • Courts should be liberal in entertaining PILs concerning good governance, but matters essentially directed against an individual or organization or those for which alternative remedies exist should be rarely entertained.
  • A writ of mandamus issues when a legal right is established and there is a failure to perform a legal duty; ordinarily a demand for performance must precede an application for mandamus.

Applying these principles to the petition, and in view of the petitioner's representation that they would be content to file a representation for administrative redress, and the respondents' undertaking to consider it expeditiously, the Court accepted the procedural compromise. The Court recorded the parties' statements, observed that principles of natural justice must be followed by the authority, and framed a time-bound regime for filing and considering the representation rather than directing an immediate enquiry or issuing mandamus itself. The Court explicitly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The petition was disposed of in the following operative terms (as recorded by the Court):

  • The petitioner is to file a representation before Respondent No. 3 within four weeks from the date of the order.
  • The concerned authority shall consider and dispose of the representation expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within four months from the date of filing, if the representation is filed along with a copy of the Court's order.
  • While considering the representation, the authority must follow principles of natural justice and afford due opportunity of hearing to the parties.
  • The petitioner retains liberty to pursue alternative remedies available in law, and to approach the Court subsequently if required on the same or subsequent cause of action.
  • The Court did not express any opinion on the merits; all issues were left open.
  • During the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, proceedings shall be conducted through digital mode unless parties mutually agree to physical meetings.

Implications: The direct practical effect is that the administrative authority is required to consider the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe with reasons and in accordance with natural justice. The Court did not decide the merits and did not set any new legal precedent.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Om Prakash Mandal And Another Petitioner/S v. State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Panchayati Raj Department And Others /S.

    Sanjay Karol, C.J.:— Heard learned counsel for the parties.

    2. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):—

    “For insuance of appropriate writ for directing the respondent authority to make proper enquiry/investigation for the work done in Rangra Panchayat by the Ward member and other agencies under the control of Mukhiya of Rangra Panchayat and also directing to complete the work done in the last five years.”

    3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.N. Jeevaraj v. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, (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.”

    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 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 (3 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.”

    4. After the matter was heard for some time, 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).

    5. 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.

    6. Statement accepted and taken on record.

    7. As such, petition stands disposed of in the following terms:—

    (a) Petitioner shall approach the authority concerned (Respondent No. 3) 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 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;

    (f) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if the need so rises subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action;

    (g) We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All issues are left open;

    (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;

    8. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Om Prakash Mandal An... v. State Of Bihar Throu...
    (Nov 1, 2021)