The Patna High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the nomination made by the District Judge, Patna to the Prabandhak Committee, which is managing the affairs of Sri Takhat Harimandir Ji, Patna Saheb, Patna City.  

The petitioner contended that the District Judge, Patna ought not to have made the three nominations before the election is over, since it is de hors and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution and by-laws governing the formation of the Committee and would lead to frustrating the democratic process of election of the committee members.

The petition is filed as a PIL and the Division Bench of Chief Justice  K. Vinod Chandran  and Justice Rajiv Roy, does not find any reason to entertain the same. The petitioners are concerned with the management of the religious place and it cannot be said that the community which has interest in the affairs of the institution and also the management of the same is either marginalized or downtrodden, requiring the Court to invoke the extraordinary discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the other remedies available.  

The petitioner is a Sikh Collective (Sikh) which is not stated to be registered as a society or association and in that circumstance it cannot be deemed to be a legal entity. Further, the respondents impleaded are the three nominees and none from the community even in a representative capacity .

The Bench noted  that the nomination made by the District Judge is in his ex officio capacity. Nomination is made under Clause 9 of Chapter IV and there are 15 members in the  Managing Committee of which 14 are nominated by the various bodies; three being nominated by the District Judge. Three members are elected by the local Sikhs of Patna district and the remaining member is co-opted by the 14 members constituting the committee. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that there is nothing mandating the nomination to be done after the election. Further, none of the other existing committee members have been impleaded in the petition.

The Court find that the District Judge’s role in the Constitution being one ex officio, he does not discharge any judicial function in that role, insofar as the Constitution and Bye-laws of the Patna Saheb are concerned.

The remedy to any person aggrieved is the civil remedy wherein the community will also have to be represented.   

The counsel would rely on an earlier order of the Court in an identical matter concerning the very same institution that too moved before this Court as a Public Interest Litigation. Therein, the  Judges noticed with some consternation that the successive incumbents in the office of the District Judge, Patna were unwilling to be associated with the Constitution and Bye-laws of the shrine because of the spate of litigations filed by different factions, with some of them raising accusations against the District Judge, personally. 

The Court found that this is one among the litigations as referred to by the Division Bench one and a half decades back. The situation has not changed with the passage of time, is what the Court noted with equal consternation. Again the Judges had hoped and directed the State officials to seek appropriate orders from the highest level and explore the possible ways and means including fresh litigation so that the affairs of a very famous and respected shrine situated in Patna Saheb may be managed efficiently, so as to serve the interest of not only the Sikh community, but of the entire State and Nation. The Court did not see the pious wish expressed by the  Division Bench having been followed up. In any event, we cannot, but notice that the learned Judges did not pass any positive directions in CWJC No. 18827 of 2018, which stands disposed of on 07.12.2010.

In the present petition also, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the District Judge, in a Public Interest Litigation. The contours of PIL’s and the circumstances on which the Constitutional Courts take a proactive role have been delineated, from a number of precedents in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, (2003) 7 SCC 546. The Court  found no good reason to   invoke and exercise the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in public interest, in the above case; the grievance projected in which has to be agitated in an appropriate civil forum. Declining discretionary exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court dismissed the petition. 

The Bench clarified that the Court has merely declined discretion and it does not validate the nomination which, if any individual or body is prejudiced with, will have to be agitated before the appropriate civil forum. When such proceedings are instituted, it would be for the forum approached to decide on the locus standi of the applicant and maintainability of such a proceeding; and if found inclined on these aspects, to decide on the merits.

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.

The Patna High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking proper investigation in the Health and Sub-Health Centre of Singhwara Prakhand, District Darbangha.

It is alleged that there is irregularity, negligence corruption and plunder in the said health center by persons named in the writ petition, who have not been impleaded as party-respondents.

Insofar as the specific allegations are concerned, it is stated that Case has been registered against a clerk, a certificate case has been filed  against the In-charge Medical Officer, a three men committee was constituted to look into the allegations of irregularities committed by the Health In-charge and the Health Manager. 

Further, the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer had recommended disciplinary action, the District Provident Fund Officer had requested the In-charge Medical Officer to make deduction of amounts from the account of a retired Auxiliary Nurse Mid-wife (ANM) and so on and so forth. Hence, obviously the authorities have been put to notice of the various irregularities and there is an inquiry carried out. 

“We cannot but emphasize the fact that none of these persons have been impleaded in the writ petition and any prejudicial orders passed for a blanket inquiry into the allegations cannot be without their presence in the writ petition. We also find no reason to entertain the writ petition since already the authorities are heading onto the allegations”, the Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy observed.

The Court clarified that it has  not made any observations regarding the irregularities alleged to have been conducted and the inquiries initiated by the authorities would be taken to its logical conclusion definitely after hearing the persons against whom such inquiry is initiated.

The Patna High Court imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the Petitioner and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed praying for removing all types of ban from the land in question situated at Village Budhaul Halka Gonawa Anchal Nawada near by Nawada town which is wrongly recorded as Anawad Sarv Sadharan (Bihar Sarkar).

The land is said to be one belonging to one lady, who filed a title suit against the Government, which was decreed. An appeal filed by the State was also dismissed and based on the decree a Jamabandi was created in the name of the lady and accordingly the rent is also paid by the person regularly. Four acres of the land obtained were sold to more than fifty purchasers who are unable to get the land mutated in their names since it is recorded in Anabad Sarv Sadharan. It is also claimed that there is illegal encroachment of government land by anti-social elements.

“The contentions are mutually destructive. If the lands belong to individual persons, then it cannot be said to be Government land. If there are encroachments on private property, then it is for such individuals to approach the appropriate authority to remove the encroachment. Further, even a denial of mutation, as pleaded in the writ petition, would have to be agitated by the individual who claims title over the property by reason of a purchase made from the title holder.”

The Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy found the petition to have been filed without any responsibility. Despite the petitioner having claimed illegal encroachment by land mafia and also asserted an F.I.R. having been registered, the persons who are alleged to have carried out the encroachment are not impleaded. The petition is a clear abuse of process of law and it is a publicity induced litigation and not a Public Interest Litigation , held by the High Court .

“We dismiss the writ petition with cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the petitioner which shall be paid to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority. If the same is not paid within one month, it shall be recovered by the Bihar State Legal Services Authority by resorting to revenue recovery proceedings as is permissible for recovery of arrears due on land”, the order reads.

The Patna High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed claiming that the respondent-authorities have been implementing the schemes for development works with gross irregularities.

The petition is filed purportedly to protect the interest of the villagers who reside within Akhlaspur Panchayat .

The Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy noted that not even one incident of such an irregularity has been pointed out in the petition and broad allegations are made without any specifics.

There is also nothing stated as to any of the villagers having been wrongly denied the benefit of such schemes. The Court noted that on the basis of enquiry report of the Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Bhabhua, the District Magistrate, Bhabhua had issued a notice to the Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary and Technical Assistant.

“The public interest litigation in this context is misconceived and is an abuse of process of the Court since bland allegations are made without any specific instance pointed out”, said the Court.

The Patna High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed with a prayer to construct the Civil Court Building, Shahpur Patori on the agricultural farm land or 100 metre north of Shahpur Patori Railway Station.

The petitioner one Rajesh Kumar Singh, also seeks for setting aside the proposal of respondent no. 9 (The Circle Officer, Patori, District- Samastipur) and to implement any other proposal beneficial to the people of Shahpur Patori, District-Samastipur.

The reliefs prayed for are in the form of questionnaire as to whether respondent no. 6 (The District Magistrate, Samastipur, District- Samastipur) demanded a proposal from the Revenue Clerk for the aforesaid construction; whether on the report of Revenue Clerk respondent no. 9 sent a proposal and whether the Revenue Clerk sent a proposal for acquiring raiyati lands which are 5 kilometers away and is a flooded area with no access to communication.

“We are afraid that there is no public interest discernible from the aforesaid prayers made which is almost in the nature of seeking information for which there are adequate remedies available under the Right to Information Act, 2005”, the Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy said.

In any event, the Bench is not convinced there could be any such claim made in public interest, especially when the High Court is in seisin of the infrastructure needs of the District Courts. The land for construction of court complexes are first identified by the local inspection conducted by the District Judge and the District Magistrate upon which a proposal is sent either to the Law Department or to the High Court. The Infrastructure Committee of Judges appointed in the High Court then considers the proposal and then with appropriate consultation with the Law Department and the Building Construction Department approves the identification of the plot and building construction for the purpose of establishment of Courts.

The Patna High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed for a direction to the authorities concerned to remove the encroachment from the public road encroached by the private respondents.

The Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 provides remedy for removal of encroachment from public lands. Section 4 of the Act allows an opportunity to the noticee (petitioner) to raise any defense which they could have raised if they were defendants in a properly framed suit for removal of encroachment. The Act also provides an opportunity of hearing under Section 5; as well as the consequences of nonappearance in the proceedings.

“It is only after observing the above procedure that final order is to be passed by the Collector under Section 6 of the Act, either dropping the proceedings or passing orders for ensuring removal of encroachment, damages or otherwise. The order of the Collector for removing encroachment is also subject to appeal under Section 11 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act also provides an opportunity of review in case of any mistake or error in the course of any proceedings”, the Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy observed.

The issue raised by the petitioner is essentially an issue falling within the scope and ambit of the Act. The petition, by way of a PIL, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, is misconceived. If the instant case were to be entertained as a PIL, then all issues of encroachment would be required to be dealt with by the Court as a PIL.

If the petitioner’s grievance includes encroachment on any plot, then the remedy would lie by way of proceedings under the Act , the Court held.

The Patna High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents to enquire into the Government Schemes which are misappropriated by the State Government and its officials (respondent IInd Set) in the name of religion at Vidyapati Nagar Block under Samastipur District and for direction to protect Government funds which are illegally misused by the authorities.

The PIL was filed by one Ajay Kumar Singh further seeking direction for removal of encroachments from the land of Railways and its officials (Respondents Ist Set), which is encroached by the Respondents IInd Set.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy noted from the order dated 26.08.2019 itself that the Division Bench found that the dispute of land encroached by State, raised vis-a-vis the Railway Administration would be settled by themselves.

In a subsequent order on 11.12.2020, the counsel for the Railways brought to the notice of the Court that there has been large encroachment of public land and building there was a direction to the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division as also the District Magistrate, Samastipur to file their personal affidavits.

The Standing counsel for the Railways raised the issue of encroachment to their properties.

The Court opined that the Railways cannot raise the issue of encroachment on their property in a Public Interest Litigation. It is not as if the Railways do not have the wherewithal to take appropriate proceedings for removal of encroachment and execute it, in accordance with law. There is no public interest discernible which could be agitated by a third party in so far as the Railway lands are concerned.

The further prayer is for enquiring into the alleged financial defalcation of Vidyapati Dham Ugna Mahadev Temple, Samastipur. At the outset, the Bench noted that the said entity has not been impleaded. Despite that, there is an Intervenor Application filed by the person who is the President of the Vidyapati Mandir Vikash Samiti, Vidyapati Dham. It is specifically alleged in the Intervenor Application that the Dham is being managed by a Samiti of which the Intervenor is the President. It is alleged that even at an earlier point the petitioner had obtained an interim order in the writ petition without the junction of the Samati who is in management; directing the Bihar State Religious Trust Board or the District Magistrate to take over the temple for administering it.

Obviously, it is a dispute in the management of the Committee for which the petitioner would have to institute a suit and not agitate the cause before this Court, that too styling it as public interest , held by the High Court.

The Patna High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking directions to the Government of Bihar to act upon the detailed project report prepared by Municipal Commissioner, Munger for development of Maa Chandika Sthan, Munger, Bihar.

Ancillary prayers were also made for commanding the respondent authorities to initiate programs for development of tourism in the area so as to provide employment and livelihood for the people in Munger.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy did not see any public interest involved in the prayers except for seeking employment to the locals of a particular district; which the State Government has a responsibility to seek to ensure all over the State.

“However, this does not come in a day, or on judicial orders issued by us. Various policies are implemented by the State and the Central Government for the purpose of providing employment to the rural people. There could be no claim made by any individual on any public interest to develop a particular area as a tourist place and thus facilitate employment for the locals, which is a purely policy matter”, the Court observed.

The Bench found no reason to invoke the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to consider the prayers sought for in the petition.