Petitioner sought mandamus for renewed bus permit. Bench directed authorities to consider a representation and dispose of it within four months, reserving merit issues and other remedies.
Direction to authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within four months with reasoned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2563 of 2022
======================================================
M/s Shushma Devi and Shashi Bhushan Prasad through its Partner Shashi Bhushan Prasad S/o Late Ram Narayan rai At-Vill-Sadalli Chak, P.S.Gopalpur, Dist-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Lalit Kishore, AG
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
“To pass appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions in the nature of mandamus directing upon the respondents to issue the renewed Permanent Permit no. 191/2004 for the route Mithapur Bus Parao to Agamkuan via- Karbigahiya, Rajendra Nagar, Bahadoorpur, Nalanda Medical strips up and 8 down trips daily which was valid till 25.09.2014 to 24.09.2019 on Mini Bus No. BR-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2563 of 2022(2) dt.21-07-2022 2/7
1P-1117 of 1996 model which was valid till 24.09.2019.”
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).
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2563 of 2022(2) dt.21-07-2022 3/7
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2563 of 2022(2) dt.21-07-2022 4/7
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 wellrecognised 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2563 of 2022(2) dt.21-07-2022 5/7
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.2563 of 2022(2) dt.21-07-2022 6/7
followed and due opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties;
Patna High Court CWJC No.2563 of 2022(2) dt.21-07-2022 7/7
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
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing issuance of renewed bus permit without exhausting alternatives.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
D. N. Jeevaraj Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & OrsReferred¶21
D. N. Jeevaraj Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2 SCC 653 · Who else cites this
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.Referred¶27
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 · Who else cites this
R & M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance GroupReferred¶29
R & M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. S.B. VohraReferred¶30
Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150 · Who else cites this
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of IndiaReferred¶35
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630 · Who else cites this
M/s Shushma Devi and Shashi Bhushan Prasad
The State of Bihar
Regional Transport Authority Patna
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patna
Sanjay Karol
S. Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
