The application of principles of natural justice and the availability of alternative remedies in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s).

“1. To issue writ of mandamus to quash the public notice/order contain in Gayapank No. 1696 dated 22.11.2021 and direct the respondents to consider to award the contract and make agreement for milling of paddy for the procurement year 2021-22 as the petitioner being a rice miller is fully eligible to get contract.

ii. To hold and declare that the reason given by the respondent district manager in the public notice/order dated 22.11.2021 is wholly illegal and factually incorrect because no demand of Rs.1,22,10,686.55 is exist as stated by the respondent, hence, the ground taken by the respondent for rejecting the application of the petitioner is wholly illegal and unjustified.

iii. To issue appropriate order and direction to the respondent specially respondent no. 4 to correct his record and eliminate/delete the demand in view of the award passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Radha Mohan Prasad (retired) cum sole arbitrator in arbitration case which arising out of request case no.197/2017, award dated 29.06.2019 whereby and where under the Hon'ble tribunal had made award in favour of petitioner of Rs. 60,81,528/-as well as interest at the rate of 14 percent from the date of award to the date of payment.

iv. To issue any other writ/writs, order/orders direction/directions as your honour deem and proper.”

2. After the matter was heard for some time, finding the 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 authority concerned i.e. (Respondent No. 2, the Bihar State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., through its Managing Director, Khadya Bhawan, Patna, Bihar) 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).

3. 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. Statement accepted and taken on record. 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:-

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

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., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 to this effect as follows: (SCC p. 515, para 16)

“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.”

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 liti