Disposed

Sanjeev Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Aug 2021CWJC/10242/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging the shift of bus stands due to the non-functional status of the new ISBT Bairiya. The court declined to interfere on merits, leaving issues open, but directed petitioners to file representations with authorities for disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioners to file representations with District Magistrate for redressal of grievances, to be disposed of within three months.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13704 of 2021

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Rajeshwar Singh, Resident of Durga Mandir, GPO, Saristabad, Patna, District - Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶6

The Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Managing Director, Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (BUIDCO), Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The District Magistrate, Patna.

¶10

The Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.

¶11

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Patna.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

======================================================

¶15

with

¶16

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10242 of 2021

¶17

======================================================

¶18

Sanjeev Kumar, Son of Dhirendra Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Kishori Nagar, Ward No. 05, Police Station- Barh, District- Patna.

¶19

Sunil Kumar Son of Late Maheshwari Prasad Singh Resident of B- 135, P.C. Colony, Police Station- Kankarbagh, District- Patna.

¶20

Satish Kumar Son of Kamta Prasad Singh Resident of House No. 3, Road No. 9-C, Keshri Nagar, Police Station- Rajeev Nagar, District- Patna.

¶21

Devmani Prasad @ Devmuni Prasad Son of Ramkrishna Prsad Sinha Resident of Mohalla- Kumhrar Chakpar, Police Station- Agamkuan, DistrictPatna.

¶22

Birendra Kumar Singh Son of Devdat Singh Resident of Mohalla- Bhagwan Bhawan, Mishri Path, Police Station- Jakkanpur, District- Patna.

¶23

... ... Petitioner/s

¶24

Versus

¶25

The State of Bihar.

¶26

The Chairman, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Bihar, Patna.

¶27

The Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶28

The Commissioner, Transport Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶29

The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.13704 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021 2/8

¶31

The District Magistrate, Patna.

¶32

... ... Respondent/s

¶33

====================================================== Appearance : (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13704 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravindra Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Rastogi (AAG-10) Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadrshi, Advocate (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10242 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vipin Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, AAG-10 ======================================================

¶34

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR) (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.)

¶35

Date : 23-08-2021

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the parties in both cases.

¶37

C.W.J.C. No. 13704 of 2021:-

¶38

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s) in the

¶39

aforesaid case:-

¶40

“(i) For stay of the final decision of the Transport Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and the District Magistrate, Patna for shifting of the present Bus Stand situated at Mithapur, Patna to the newly constructed Inter State Bus Terminal in short I.S.B.T. at Bairiya towards Patna-Gaya Road direction.

¶41

(ii) For a direction to continue the functioning of plying of buses, etc, from the Mithapur bus stand till the the completion/construction and development of full fledged ISBT at Bairiya.

¶42

(iii) For a direction of shifting of the bus stand to Bairiya after development of the entire basic infrastructure, amenities, approach/service roads, security, etc. by the government to the people at large.

¶43

Patna High Court CWJC No.13704 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021 3/8

¶44

(iv) For any other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶45

C.W.J.C. No. 10242 of 2021:-

¶46

Petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s) in

¶47

the aforesaid case:-

¶48

“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for a direction to the respondent authorities to permit the buses of the petitioners to operate from Mithapur Bus Depot in light of the fact that the Interstate Bus Terminal, Bairiya is not fully functional/equipped for managing more than 2000 buses.

¶49

(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ from shifting the Bus Terminal from Mithapur to Bairia till the Barea Bus Depot becomes fully equipped and functional with basic amenities like drinking water, toilets, parking facilities, rest rooms for the public and staff of more than 2000 buses.

¶50

(iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for a direction to the respondent authorities to stop discriminating amongst the buses run by the State Govt. and the private owners and to permit the buses of the petitioners to operate from Mithapur Bus Depot as the buses run by the State Govt. are being permitted to run from Bankipur Bus Depot without shifting to I.S.B.T. Bairiya.

¶51

(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which his lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶52

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. N. Jeevaraj Vs.

¶53

Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2

¶54

SCC 653 , paragraphs 34 to 38 observed as under:-

¶55

Patna High Court CWJC No.13704 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021 4/8

¶56

“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.

¶57

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)

¶58

“ 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.”

¶59

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.

¶60

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)

¶61

Patna High Court CWJC No.13704 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021

¶62

5/8

¶63

“ 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.

¶64

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.”

¶65

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)

¶66

“ 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:

¶67

‘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

¶68

Patna High Court CWJC No.13704 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021 6/8

¶69

which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal.’

¶70

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.”

¶71

After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners, under instructions, states that petitioners shall be content if a direction is issued to the authority concerned i.e. District Magistrate, Patna, to consider and decide the representation which the petitioners shall be filing within a period of four weeks from today for redressal of the grievance(s).

¶72

Learned counsel for the respondents states that if such a representation is filed by the petitioners, 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.

¶73

Statement accepted and taken on record.

¶74

As such, petition stands disposed of in the following terms:-

¶75

(a) Petitioners shall approach the authority concerned i.e. District Magistrate, Patna within a period of

¶76

Patna High Court CWJC No.13704 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021 7/8

¶77

four weeks from today by filing a representation for redressal of the grievance(s);

¶78

(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;

¶79

(c) Needless to add, while considering such representation, principles of natural justice shall be followed and due opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties;

¶80

(d) Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law;

¶81

(e) We are hopeful that as and when petitioners take 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;

¶82

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

¶83

Patna High Court CWJC No.13704 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021 8/8

¶84

(g) Liberty also reserved to the petitioners to make a mention for listing of the petition on priority basis. As and when any such mention is made, Registry shall take steps for listing the petition at the earliest.

¶85

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

¶86

(i) 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;

¶87

The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid

¶88

terms.

¶89

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶90

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

¶91

( S. Kumar, J)

¶92

veena/rajiv-