Disposed

Vijay Kumar Singh v. Union of India

Patna HC23 Aug 2021CWJC/11152/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus to restart the 500 Bed Covid Care Hospital in Muzaffarpur and initiate action against officials who allegedly closed it. The court declined to decide merits, directing the petitioner to file a representation within four weeks for the authority to consider.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to file a representation within four weeks for authority to consider and decide within three months.

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs Union of India — Public Procurement and Tenders | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11152 of 2021

¶2

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

¶3

Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Late Bhagya Narayan Singh, Resident of Sahdeo Path (Near Nala), Patel Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶7

The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶8

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶10

The Director in Chief, Health Services, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶11

The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

¶12

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur.

¶13

The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur, DistrictMuzaffarpur.

¶14

The State Health Society, Bihar, Patna through the Executive Director.

¶15

The Executive Director, The State Health Society, Bihar, Patna.

¶16

... ... Respondent/s

¶17

=============== Appearance :	====	===================================
For the Petitioner/s	:	Mr.Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s	: : :	Mr. Dr. K.N. Singh (ASG) Mr. Kishore Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Shashi Shekhar, Advocate
===============	: : ====	Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, G.A. 8 ===================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR)

¶20

(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.)

¶21

Date : 23-08-2021

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.11152 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021 2/7

¶25

“(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to re-start the function of 500 Bed Covid Care Hospital, situated in Patahi Aerodrome, Muzaffarpur which was constructed from the funds of Prime Minister Care Fund Trust and it was inaugurated in the month of September, 2020. (II) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to conduct the enquiry and to take suitable departmental action against the ering officers, who just after inauguration of 500 Bed of Covid Care Hospital, Patahi, Muzaffarpur closed and destructed it though in the nation the Pandemic Covid’19 has not come to an end rather the experts have predicted that the second wave of Pandemic Covid,19 will come in very panic.

¶26

(III) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner shall be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

“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.

¶31

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)

¶32

“ 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

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.11152 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021 3/7

¶34

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.”

¶35

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.

¶36

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)

¶37

“ 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.

¶38

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.”

¶39

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

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.11152 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021

¶41

4/7

¶42

Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India , (1974) 2 SCC 630] in the following words: (SCC pp. 641-42, paras 24-25)

¶43

“ 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:

¶44

‘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.’

¶45

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.”

¶46

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).

¶47

Patna High Court CWJC No.11152 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021 5/7

¶48

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.

¶49

Statement accepted and taken on record.

¶50

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

¶51

(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);

¶52

(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;

¶53

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

¶54

(d) Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise

¶55

Patna High Court CWJC No.11152 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021 6/7

¶56

available in accordance with law;

¶57

(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;

¶58

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

¶59

(g) Liberty also reserved to the petitioner 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.

¶60

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

¶61

(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;

¶62

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

¶63

terms.

¶64

Patna High Court CWJC No.11152 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021 7/7

¶65

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

¶66

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

¶67

( S. Kumar, J)