The Patna High Court dismissed  a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking to ensure the safety and security norms in facilitating new retail outlets of petroleum products to be in consonance with Indian Road Congress-2009 based on which Ministry of Road Transport and Highway (MORTH) have issued guidelines.

The PIL has been one  Dhirendra Kumar Shahi.

The petitioner in the  petition itself was concerned with the establishment of only one petrol pump at Kanti Motipur Road in village Mahima Gopinathpur  of Motipur Block, District-Muzaffarpur. 

“Later, the petitioner sought to implead the allottee of the petrol pump. Obviously, this is not a Public Interest Litigation and it is against the allotment of a petrol pump to one person.”

In such circumstance,  the Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar did not  entertained the matter as a Public Interest Litigation and dismissed the same specifically finding that there is no reason to invoke the extraordinary remedy that too by an application filed as a PIL.

The Patna High Court closed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)  filed seeking an enquiry into the funds allegedly misappropriated under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, funded by the Government of India and the appointments made by the Government of Bihar of regular teachers in the three tier Panchayat system who joined between 2006-2015. 

It is alleged that many of the said teachers had produced forged academic and training certificates, as also the selection was vitiated by the nepotism of the Mukhiyas. The petitioner also has specifically referred to the orders passed in a Petition of 2014 and sought for completion of the verification directed therein.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar noted that the Petition of 2014 was filed agitating the very same cause, in public interest. By order dated 22.06.2015, a Division Bench noticed the disparity in claims made by the Education Minister and the Vigilance Department of teachers appointed on the basis of fake certificates. The Division Bench noticed the magnitude of a fraud and decided to give a general amnesty to persons who come forward voluntarily as a first step. A notice was directed to be published to the effect that any teacher who secured appointment on the basis of fake or fabricated certificates should submit his resignation within 15 days, and then no proceeding would be taken against him for prosecution or for recovery of the salary already paid. The teachers continuing, if found to be have secured appointment on the basis of fake and fraudulent certificates, would then be subjected not only to prosecution, but also recovery of the salary paid.

Later by an order dated 28.07.2015, it was noticed that 3000 teachers have resigned and that verification is going on with respect to the other’s certificates. Annexure-6 order is in disposal of the writ petition, which is dated 05.12.2016. The Vigilance Bureau’s investigations and the report filed were noticed. It was observed that a gigantic task is being carried out by the Vigilance and hence, there is no requirement of continuous monitoring of investigation. The writ petition was closed with the hope that the Vigilance would complete the investigation and take appropriate action. Hence, if there was any complaint regarding the investigation, there should have been a contempt filed and not a second writ petition for the very same cause.   

Be that as it may, there has been a number of counter affidavits filed by the Education Department and the Vigilance Department. the High Court referred to the counter affidavit filed by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau on 03.10.2023 and that of the Education Department on 13.03.2024. The Education Department after referring to the  final order passed in the Petition of 2014 has listed out the further actions taken. About six lakhs certificates were verified by the Vigilance Bureau and only 2019 certificates were found to be fake i.e., less than 0.35%. Almost 1317 FIRs were registered in the last nine years against 2561 persons. The teachers dismissed from service are 1252 and action is pending against the remaining persons who were found to have procured fake and fraudulent certificates. There are also some  petitions filed based on which some of the teachers are continuing.

The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau submits that 3,52,927 folders of individual Niyojit teachers were to be sanctioned. The certificates produced were verified with the Examination Board inside and outside the State. Out of 3,52,927 folders, the Vigilance Bureau was able to procure only 2,80,759 folders, containing 8,30,237 certificates, from the District Education Authorities as on September, 2023. The certificates were sent for verification to the concerned Boards, Universities and Institutions inside and outside the State of Bihar. Out of 5,90,945 certificates verified 2157 certificates were found to be fake and forged. It is submitted that almost 71% of the total certificates produced have been verified. The registration of FIRs as stated by the Vigilance Bureau is in tandem with the submission made by the Education Department.

The High Court noted that a break-up chart of the investigation carried out showing the number of folders procured, the result of enquiry up to September, 2023 . A break-up chart of the details of certificates sent to the different Boards, Universities and Institutions within and outside the State of Bihar are also produced as Annexure F and G. Out of a total of 5,57,959 certificates of Niyojit teachers 4,33,854 certificates have been verified and 1,24,105 certificates are still pending verification. Verification has also been attempted of 34,570 certificates of teachers who obtained qualifications from outside the State of Bihar and 32,809 certificates are pending verification with the various Universities; some of whom have demanded charges for the verification to be carried out.  

The Advocate General has informed the Court that many of the folders with respect to the Niyojit teachers are not available and in that circumstance the investigation into the selection process has reached a definite road block. The Court noted that with the passage of time, a lot has been achieved by the Vigilance Bureau and steps are still continued. As of now, the  State has changed the policy of appointment of teachers and has brought out rules intending to appoint qualified persons after a due selection process by a Commission constituted.

The Patna High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction upon the respondents to ensure construction of school buildings, class rooms, play-grounds, libraries, toilets, drinking water facilities, electricity facilities, science laboratories and other necessary infrastructure required for running a model school.

Various resolutions of the State Government have been referred to in order to strengthen the submissions put forth before the Court. 

It is submitted that despite all the aforesaid resolutions, the state machinery has completely failed to provide proper infrastructure to the schools, which is the need of the hour. 

It has further been contended that the petitioner made several representations before all the authorities concerned, but the progress in this regard is still not up to the mark.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar noted that identical petitions by way of public interest litigation are being filed repeatedly before the Court, burdening the docket and the Court is pained to observe that the same is being filed without any sincere efforts or verification of the necessary facts as also lacking genuine public interest.

Identical petitions are pending before the  Supreme Court as well as the Court where proper monitoring is being done and if the petitioner still has any grievance, he should haveintervened in the matter, if he is genuinely interested to extend assistance.

“This Court deprecates multifarious litigation on one issue, which is already being monitored by the Courts. In that view of the matter, it would not only be inequitable to proceed with the same, since it would lead to multiple orders, resulting into stalling the progress. The present writ petition stands dismissed”, the order reads.

The Patna High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking a direction upon the respondents for construction of a Community Health Centre or alternatively upgrade the Primary Health Centre, Darauli, Siwan into the Community Health Centre.

It is averred that presently the Primary Health  Centre, Darauli, Siwan consists of 6 bed health centre where male and female patients are being treated in the same room and the available medical facility of the Primary Health Centre are quite different from the standard medical facility, which ought to have been there. The Primary Health Centre, Darauli, Siwan is the only Medical Centre of the locality, around more than 2 lakhs population and the people of the locality have no option but to go to the Primary Health Centre in case of any medical emergency. 

The  petition further discloses that the people of the locality have been continuously demanding for construction of Community Health Centre, as also for improvement of medical facility at Primary Health Centre, Darauli, Siwan and they also went on Dharna and the matter has been raised before all concerned, including the District Magistrate, Civil Surgeon and D.D.C., Siwan etc. but no action has been taken in this regard.

In response to the averments made in the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of  the Civil Surgeon, Siwan.  

Government Counsel referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that considering the reasonable demand of the people of the locality,   deliberations were made in the meetings of the District Coordination Committee on 26.12.2020 and further on 27.02.2021. 

In this context, the adjoining land of the Zila Parishad was proposed to be transferred and necessary guidelines were also sought for by the concerned department. However, it was learnt that the land was utilized by the Zila Parishad for construction of a market and 11 shops were already constructed and a half constructed building was in place for Bazar Samiti. Thus, in the light of the unavailability of sufficient land in order to upgrade the Primary Health Centre, Darauli, a Referral Hospital of 30 beds was conceived in the nearby village Done, which is approximately 8 Km from the Primary Health Centre, Darauli. Further Rs. 6,44,95,000/- was also sanctioned for construction of the Referral Hospital vide letter dated 20.05.2019 issued by the Health Department.

The Counsel for the State further submitted that the official respondents are sensitive towards the demand and grievance of the locality and considering the medical needs of the people of the locality the Referral Hospital, Done has been constructed with a strength of 30 beds within 8 Km from the Primary Health Centre, Darauli in order to cater the Medical needs of the people residing in nearby the village. It has also been informed that the construction of Referral Hospital is already over awaiting inauguration.

Considering the rival submissions and the averments made in the counter affidavit, especially in the fact of the District Coordination Committee having consistently taken steps to meet the demands of the people of the locality, but on account of the unavailability of sufficient land in village Darauli, Siwan, a Referral Hospital of 30 beds have been constructed in the nearby village Done, at a distance of 8 Km from the Primary Health Centre, Darauli, the Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar does not find any reason or occasion to continue with the present litigation.

The Patna High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed for a direction to the respondent(s) concerned to ensure enquiry regarding empanelment of a Firm under Bihar Gram Swaraj Yojna Society for providing training centre in all the districts of Bihar and cancel the empanelment of said Agency, as the same has been empanelled in collusion with the respondent-authorities, apart from the fact that the Agency does not have registration under the G.S.T Act.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to a tender notice, applications were invited for hiring infrastructure with food and equipment necessary for conducting training programme in all the districts of the State of Bihar with certain criteria, including the Agency must have registration with G.S.T. department besides other eligibility criteria. 

It is further contended that the private respondent was registered with G.S.T. on 07.09.2018 but was cancelled in the year 2020 and thus the private respondent does not fulfill the eligibility criteria and, on this ground alone, the selection of the private respondent is bad. 

It is next contended that due to non registration with G.S.T. department the private respondent will cause financial loss to the State by way of tax evasion and moreover, in the process of selection of Agency, public fund is being utilized, so the process must be fair and all the parties/firms/agencies should be given equal opportunity in terms of NIT and the rules and regulations made therein.  

The Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran  and Justice Harish Kumar  noted that Public Interest Litigation is available for issues affecting the public at large, such as environmental concerns, human rights violations, corruption and matters impacting social justice. The very purpose behind the P.I.L. is to ensure justice to all and promoting the welfare of the people.

“From the materials available on record, apart from the lack of foundational facts, there is no material, much less, showing the interest of public is affected. The Government is the agency enjoined with utilization of public funds and collection of revenue. There is a full-fledged department to ensure due payment of taxes and a non-registration under the taxing statute does not absolve an entity engaged in taxable transactions from the tax payable and furthermore entails imposition of penalty”, the order reads.

The Patna High Court imposed a Cost of  Rs. 5,000/-  on the Petitioner and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking for an inquiry into the illegalities committed by the 8th respondent (person who was holding the post of Child Development Project Officer, Sarmera, Nalanda between 2014 to 2018).

The Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran  and Justice Harish Kumar noted that it is not clear as to where she is posted now nor has she been impleaded in the personal capacity. 

The Court finds the  petition filed in such a manner without impleading the party against whom the complaint is raised, to be totally misconceived.

The counter affidavit refers to the various allegations raised against the Child Development Project Officer, who is also named in the counter affidavit. In fact, the same was raised by the petitioner before the District Public Grievance Cell, Nalanda by way of filing a complaint in March 2018. The matter was then transferred to The District Programme Officer, Nalanda for inquiry. The District Public Grievance Cell, Nalanda considered the report and found that there is no merit in the allegations raised and that the accusations have not been proved in the inquiry. The petitioner’s complaint was dismissed by the The District Programme Officer, Nalanda in October 2018.  

An appeal was filed by the petitioner before The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, which was also disposed of in December 2018. In appeal, the Appellate Authority only found that it transpires that procedural error had occurred in the hiring of private vehicles and the officer was directed to exercise more care and caution in future. Again, the petitioner had raised the issue before the Lokayukta, Bihar, which was also rejected.   

The various orders are produced before the High Court . When an inquiry was conducted it was found by the District Public Grievance Cell, Nalanda and the Appellate Authority that there was nothing more than procedural irregularities; there was absolutely no necessity to file the above petition.  As the Court noted that the  petition has also been filed without impleading the person against whom allegations are raised. “The petition, hence, is found to be misconceived, misplaced and an abuse of process of court.”

 “We dismiss the writ petition imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner to be recovered by the Bihar State Legal Services Authority, as amount due on land revenue”, the order reads.

The Patna High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed for improvement of representation of women of State of Bihar by implementing the domicile system while selecting the women in women category in government service of the State of Bihar and for such relief the petitioner seeks a direction to take effective measures and steps for controlling/monitoring/curbing the uncontrolled and irrational entry of women who are not the residents of Bihar, but enjoying the quota which should have been reserved only for women of Bihar in general (open) category for reserved quotas for women. 

The petitioner further sought a direction to provide horizontal reservation to the women of Bihar in general (open) category in the way of such horizontal reservation as provided to the grandchildren of freedom fighters of the State of Bihar, as it is implemented in other States of Union of India.

The  petition avered that because of there being serious ambiguity in the policy of the State of Bihar regarding horizontal reservation for women, there is not only a loss for the women of unreserved category of the State of Bihar, but it is big loss for the meritorious girls of other reserved category also, because if the quota of women of unreserved category would have been reserved for the women of Bihar only, the meritorious women of all other classes would have been made their space in open category, but due to excessively high competition of the women of other States, women of this   State found themselves standing with empty hands. 

The petition further discloses that because of ambiguity, the basic purpose for which 35% horizontal reservation was given to the women is being frustrated and on one hand where all States have clearly prohibited the women of other State to enter into their women quotas reserved to the women of the respective States and on another hand State of Bihar is generous enough to distribute the reserved seats for women among the women of other States.

Government Advocate referring to the Resolution No. 963 dated 20.01.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar submitted that the representation of the women of this State in the different reserved categories is admissible to the candidate, who is the permanent resident of the State of Bihar. He next contended that while making the amendment of Section 4 of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Amendment) Act, 2003 by incorporating proviso to SubSection 2 of Section 4 of the said Act, it has been provided that the candidates residing out of the State of Bihar shall not claim for benefits of reservation under the Act.  

Adverting to the aforesaid decision of the State Government, it is also stated that 40% reservation for unreserved category and an open merit category against which a candidate from the State of Bihar or any State may be selected against 40% seats/vacancies of open merit categories, so that merit may not be denied. 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran  and Justice Harish Kumar referred the case of Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; (2002) 6 SCC 562 from which para 13 and 14 are reads:-

“13. Before proceeding further we should steer clear of a misconception that surfaced in the course of arguments advanced on behalf of the State and some of the parties. Based on the decisions which countenanced geographical classification for certain weighty reasons such as socio-economic backwardness of the area for the purpose of admissions to professional colleges, it has been suggested that residence within a district or rural areas of that district could be a valid basis for classification for the purpose of public employment as well. We have no doubt that such a sweeping argument which has the overtones of parochialism is liable to be rejected on the plain terms of Article 16(2) and in the light of Article 16(3). An argument of this nature flies in the face of the peremptory language of Article 16(2) and   runs counter to our constitutional ethos founded on unity and integrity of the nation. Attempts to prefer candidates of a local area in the State were nipped in the bud by this Court since long past. We would like to reiterate that residence by itself — be it within a State, region, district or lesser area within a district cannot be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation, save as provided in Article 16(3). It is not possible to compartmentalize the State into districts with a view to offer employment to the residents of that district on a preferential basis. At this juncture it is appropriate to undertake a brief analysis of Article 16.

14. Article 16 which under clause (1) guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State reinforces that guarantee by prohibiting under clause (2) discrimination on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Be it noted that in the allied article — Article 15 — the word “residence” is omitted from the opening clause prohibiting discrimination on specified grounds. Clauses (3) and (4) of Article 16 dilute the rigour of clause (2) by (i) conferring an enabling power on Parliament to make a law prescribing the residential requirement within the State in regard to a class or classes of employment or  appointment to an office under the State, and (ii) by enabling the State to make a provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The newly introduced clauses (4-A) and (4-B), apart from clause (5) of Article 16 are the other provisions by which the embargo laid down in Article 16(2) in somewhat absolute terms is lifted to meet certain specific situations with a view to promote the overall objective underlying the article. Here, we should make note of two things : firstly, discrimination only on the ground of residence (or place of birth) insofar as public employment is concerned, is prohibited; secondly, Parliament is empowered to make the law prescribing residential requirement within a State or Union Territory, as the case may be, in relation to a class or classes of employment. That means, in the absence of parliamentary law, even the prescription of requirement as to residence within the State is a taboo. Coming to the first aspect, it must be noticed that the prohibitory mandate under Article 16(2) is not attracted if the alleged discrimination is on grounds not merely related to residence, but the factum of residence is only taken into account in addition to other relevant factors. This, in effect, is the import of the expression “only”.  

Considering the response of the State counsel justifying their stand for reservation of women in the State of Bihar and allowing 40% reservation for unreserved category through a candidate of open merit category, the Court does not find any merit in the  petition and the same stands dismissed.

The Patna High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to inquire into the allegations of embezzlement of government funds earmarked for Yojna under which a fund of Rs.6,25,000/- has been allotted to construct Anganwadi Centre No. 120 in Ward No. 8 at village Semara Nizamat, Gram Panchayat Raj Paharpur Manorath in Sahebganj block of Muzaffarpur in favour of the private respondents on a government land.

Despite the allotment of the fund , the private respondents have not constructed the Anganwadi Centre on government land, rather a house has been constructed on the land of one private person where the private person has been living with his family.

Taking note of the seriousness of the aforesaid compliant of the petitioner against the Panchayat Secretary and Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Paharpur Manorath, showing embezzlement of public money, the High Court vide its order dated 30.04.2019, directed the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur to get the matter examined and file counter affidavit.

In compliance therewith, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the government respondents.

The matter was inquired and, prima facie, it has been found that the allotted fund to the tune of Rs.6,25,000/- has been unauthorizedly diverted by the then Panchayat Secretary and the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Paharpur Manorath for construction of house meant for a private person, leading to show-cause notice to the Panchayat Secretary as to under what circumstances, the said building of Anganwadi Centre No. 120 was constructed on the private land. Despite the notice, no response has been made and thus the memo of charge was framed and he has been put under suspension with immediate effect.

Considering the avernments enumerated in the counter affidavit, as discussed hereinabove, the Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar deemed it apt and proper to dispose of the application with a hope and expectation that the departmental proceeding initiated against the erring Panchayat Secretary would come to its logical conclusion expeditiously, in accordance with law. The Court expected the authorities to ensure recovery of public funds, diverted for construction of a residential house for a private individual.

The Patna High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed for directing the respondent authorities to make enquiry into the misuse of public fund by the ‘Mukhiyas’ relating to different schemes.

The petitioner claims herself to be a Social Worker and is perturbed by the misuse of fund by the ‘Mukhiyas’ in the name of schemes and in furtherance of that claims that the ‘Mukhiyas’ of the Gram Panchayat Aurai, Rajkhand (South), Muzaffarpur are not following the rules and regulations related to the running of the scheme and has thus misappropriated the public fund. She also claims to have approached the Principal Secretary of the Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar, Patna.

From the petition, the Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy noted that a vague charge has been made on all the ‘Mukhiyas’ of the State inasmuch as neither any detail has been incorporated nor the scheme has been mentioned. None of the ‘Mukhiyas’ are made parties in the writ petition, either in their official or in their personal capacities. In short, the petition is ill prepared.

The Court fails to understand why the petitioner has approached the Patna High Court under Public Interest Litigation for a direction upon the concerned authority to act against the officials in the Gram Panchayat Aurai, Rajkhand (South) for the embezzlement of amount.

The State is fully equipped to check the said irregularity and take the concerned officials under its net. In other words, the State Vigilance Department is fully functional, any person armed with documents can approach the Department alongwith its affidavit and the machinery will automatically start rolling ,said the Court.

The Patna High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed with a prayer to direct the respondent, District Magistrate, Jamui, to send proposal for identifying the sufficient land available in village-Gokhula, within Panchayat Raj, Gokhula, Fatehpur under Sikandra block in the district of Jamui.

Further, the petitioner wants the State Government to carry out the construction of the said Panchayat Bhawan on the land so identified.

The contention of the petitioner is that both the ‘Mukhiya’ and the Circle Officer, Sikandra, Jamui have marked a place under mauja Gokhula, Fatehpur which is not good for Panchayat Raj Bhawan. In sum and substance, the petitioner has tried to convince the Court that the land chosen by the Circle Officer, Sikandra, Jamui as also the ‘Mukhiya’ for construction of Panchayat Bhawan is not suitable for the common people.

The Circle Officer, Sikandra earmarked a land for the construction of Panchayat Bhawan which ultimately would have been approved by the highest authority of the district, the District Magistrate, Jamui and as such the decision so taken needs no interference. A Panchayat Bhawan cannot be constructed according to the convenience of a single individual and/or handful of the people.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy do not see any merit in the present Public Interest Litigation, the same is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed by the High Court.