A writ of mandamus is issued against someone who has failed or omitted to fulfil a legal obligation and a legal duty arises either as a result of a public duty or as a result of the operation of law is upheld by the High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR in the case of Uaday Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21438 of 2021)
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner has requested for the Hon’ble Court’s indulgence in issuing an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to remove the encroachment over the public land in question, which has been hut etc in accordance with law in Mauza- Lagma, than P.S. Sarayranjan, District- Samastipur, in Khata.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in D. N. Jeevaraj Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2 SCC 653, procedural technicalities ought to take a back seat in public interest litigation as 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. The writ petitions before the court are not inter-party disputes, but rather public interest litigation, and the issue before the court is whether mining in the region should be authorised or prohibited for the sake of social safety and providing a hazard-free environment for the people to live in. When an issue of severe public importance is up for review before the court, every technicality in the procedural law is not accessible as a defence.
The court further commented that a writ of mandamus is granted to Parties who establishes a legal right in themselves. A writ of mandamus is issued against someone who has failed or omitted to fulfil a legal obligation. A legal duty arises either as a result of a public duty or as a result of the operation of law. The writ of mandamus has a wide-ranging remedial scope. The purpose of mandamus is to prevent disturbance caused by a failure of justice, and it must be provided in all circumstances where the law has not created a specific remedy and justice has not been granted notwithstanding the demand.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that if a direction is issued to the authority concerned, the Circle Officer, Sarayranjan, District- Samastipur) to consider and decide the representation that the petitioner will be filing within a period of four weeks from today for redressal of the grievance(s), the petitioner will be satisfied, whereas 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 in a timely manner along with a copy of order. Petitioner shall approach the authority concerned within four weeks, and while considering such representation, natural justice principles shall be followed and due opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties, and when petitioner seeks 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. When a notice is made, Registry will take steps to list the petition as soon as possible. The court has not took the decision on the merits. All concerns are left unresolved, and the petitioner has the option of mentioning the petition for priority listing.
Judgement reviewed by – Pooja Lakshmi