Adjudicating in a writ of mandamus, in Bindu Thakur and Birendra Thakur vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Land Reforms and Revenue & Others (2025), Justice Satyavrat Verma of Patna High Court directed the Circle Officer, Charpokhari to comply with the order dated June 27, 2024 passed by the Collector as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of Court's order.
The petitioners were aggrieved by the fact that the Circle Officer, Charpokhari was not complying with the orders of the Collector and the DCLR. The petitioner's counsel submitted that it is an act of insubordination that the Circle Officer, despite specific direction passed by the Collector, was not giving heed to the order. The petitioners were compelled to move before the Patna High Court seeking a writ of mandamus.
A writ of Mandamus is a command issued by the High Court to the State or its Authorities requiring the performance of a particular duty specified, which duty results from the official duty or by operation of law. A writ of mandamus is imposed for securing judicial enforcement of public duties, performance of which has been wrongfully refused.
The writ of mandamus is regarded as one of the highest remedies in the Indian Judicial System.
Two pre-conditions must exists before granting remedy by way of mandamus, first; it must be shown that the petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance of a particular act or duty at the hands of respondents and second; it must appear that the law affords no other adequate or specific remedy to secure the enforcement of the right and the performance of the duty which it is sought to enforce.
The condition precedent for the issue of mandamus is the presence of statutory right.
The purpose of mandamus is to remedy defects of justice. It lies in the cases where there is a specific right but no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right. In general, it is not available in anticipation of any injury except when the petitioner is likely to be affected by an official act in contravention of a statutory duty or where an illegal or unconstitutional order is made. The grant of mandamus is, therefore, an equitable remedy; a matter for the discretion of the court, the exercise of which is governed by well-settled principles.
The High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion
In Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 631, the Supreme Court's division bench of Justices Indira Banjerjee and Indu Malhotra decided it on August 7, 2020 that "The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus, but are duty bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a Statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion malafide, or on irrelevant consideration.” In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. There is no limitation for the High Courts to issue the writ “in the nature of mandamus”. Article 226 confers wide powers on the High Court.
On May 16, 2024, Supreme Court's division bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta pronounced the judgement in MR. R. S Madireddy vs. Union of India observed: "A plain reading of Article 226 of the Constitution of India would make it clear that the High Court has the power to issue the directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto and Prohibition to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government within its territorial jurisdiction for the enforcement of rights conferred by Part-III of the Constitution of India and for any other purpose."
Supreme Court has interpreted the term ‘authority’ used in Article 226 in the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. v. V.R. Rudani & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 691 wherein it was held as follows:
“17. There, however, the prerogative writ of mandamus is confined only to public authorities to compel performance of public duty. The ‘public authority’ for them means everybody which is created by statute—and whose powers and duties are defined by statute. So government departments, local authorities, police authorities, and statutory undertakings and corporations, are all ‘public authorities’. But there is no such limitation for our High Courts to issue the writ ‘in the nature of mandamus’. Article 226 confers wide powers on the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs. This is a striking departure from the English law. Under Article 226, writs can be issued to ‘any person of authority’. It can be issued ‘for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose’.... 20. The term ‘authority’ used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning like the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words ‘any person or authority’ used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed. If a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied.”
In the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas (2003) 10 SCC 733, the Supreme Court culled out the categories of body/persons who would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Government); (ii) an authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.”
In Bindu Thakur case, the counsel for the petitioners, Dr. S.S.P. Yadav submitted that from perusal of Annexure-1, i.e., order dated June 27, 2024 passed by the Collector-cum-2nd Appellate Authority, Bhojpur, Ara, it is manifest that the Collector-cum-2nd Appellate Authority has clearly directed the Circle Officer, Charpokhari to carry out the measurement of land for which petitioners have deposited the requisite fee. The petitioners produced the order of Collector dated June 27, 2024 before the Circle Officer, but then he was sitting tight over the matter. It was submitted that the moment the land of the petitioners will get measured by the Circle Officer through the Amin the real fact would come to the light that how private respondents are trying to encroach on the settled land of the petitioners.
The State counsel submitted that he did not have any objection in the event if the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Circle Officer, Charpokhari to comply with the order dated June 27, 2024 passed by the Collector within a time frame.
Besides the State of Bihar, the other four respondents were: The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bhojpur, The Circle Officer at Charpokhari Anchal, Bhojpur, Birendera Kumar Himanshu @ B.D. Singh, Dhedha, Charpokhari, Bhojpur and Vikas Kumar, Son of Birendra Kumar Himanshu @ B.C. Singh, Charpokhari, Bhojpur.
No comments:
Post a Comment