Disposed

Binod Prasad Choudhari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC27 Apr 2022CWJC/3392/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus for supply of paddy to a rice mill. Instead of deciding on merits or ordering immediate supply, the Court directed the petitioner to file a representation with the District Co-operative Officer. The authority was directed to dispose of it expeditiously within four months with a reasoned order, retaining liberty for alternative remed

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioners to file a representation with the District Co-operative Officer within four weeks for redressal of grievances, to be disposed of within four months.

Binod Prasad Choudhari Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3392 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Binod Prasad Choudhari Son of Late Narayan Choudhari, Proprietor of Choudhary Rice Mill, Rajwara, Resident of Village - Rajwara, P.O. - Karsawan, P.S. - Fesar, District - Aurangabad.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Bihar State Food and Supply Corporation Ltd., Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Managing Director, of Bihar State Food and Supply Corporation Ltd., Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Collector, Aurangabad.

¶10

The District Co-operative Officer, Aurangabad.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

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

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Rupa Kumari. Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr.Manish Kumar (GP4) For BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶14

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

¶15

Date : 27-04-2022

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

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

¶18

“That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or an appropriate writ for issuance of a direction to the respondent to act as per memo no. 607, dated 24/12/2021 & also direct the respondent to supply paddy to the petitioner rice mill named as Choudharyy Rice mill, Rajwara, registration no. MILLBR23502436, BLOCK -Obra, milling capacity (in MT) 3, has selected for paddi Bippanan for year 2021- 22, but without any reason the respondents have not supplied paddy to the petitioner to produce rice from paddy and supply to the respondents and due to such act the mill of the petitioner comes at the stage of closing and due to such act

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.3392 of 2022 dt.27-04-2022 2/7

¶20

the petitioner is also getting monetary loss and there is question of survival of the petitioner along With mill employs and / or pass any order orders as may deems fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

¶21

After the matter was heard for some time, finding the

¶22

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 respondent no. 5 the District Cooperative Officer, Aurangabad, 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).

¶23

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.

¶24

Statement accepted and taken on record.

¶25

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:-

¶26

“ 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

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.3392 of 2022 dt.27-04-2022

¶28

3/7

¶29

correctness or otherwise of the decision of the High Court in this regard.

¶30

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)

¶31

“ 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.”

¶32

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

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.3392 of 2022 dt.27-04-2022

¶34

4/7

¶35

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)

¶36

“ 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.

¶37

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

38. A salutary principle or a well-

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.3392 of 2022 dt.27-04-2022 5/7

¶40

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)

¶41

“ 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:

¶42

‘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.’

¶43

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.”

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.3392 of 2022 dt.27-04-2022 6/7

¶45

As such, petition stands disposed of on the following

¶46

terms:-

¶47

(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);

¶48

(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;

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

(e) Also, opportunity to place on record all relevant materials/documents shall be granted to the parties;

¶52

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

¶53

(g) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law,

¶54

Patna High Court CWJC No.3392 of 2022 dt.27-04-2022 7/7

¶55

before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch;

¶56

(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;

¶57

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

¶58

(j) 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;

¶59

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

¶60

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

¶61

(S. Kumar, J)

¶62

ranjan/-

¶63

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date
Transmission Date	NA

Binod Prasad Choudhari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Prasad Choudhari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagendra Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Bihar Truck Owner Association Vs The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary

Ravish Kumar Vs The Union of India

Suman Sharan Srivastava Vs The Union of India

M/s New Mithila Khadi Bhawan Vs The State of Bihar

Veer Bahadur Kumar Vs The State of Bihar