Application of principles of natural justice, availability of alternative remedies, importance of public interest litigation, and the need for procedural technicalities to take a back seat in public interest cases.

JUDGMENT :

S. KUMAR, J.

(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter no. 2155 dated 29.09.2021 issued by the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board whereby the Board has granted approval to appointment of seven teachers and one Clerk in Madarsa Noorul Hoda, Machhaila Kela Bari, Araria (Madarsa No. 374) despite the fact that the appointment was made without following the procedure and the relatives of the members of the Managing Committee have been appointed in an illegal manner and even the Head Maulvi of the Madarsa was not aware about the selection procedure.

(ii) For necessary direction upon the District Magistrate, Araria to inquire into the selection process adopted by the Managing Committee of Madarsa Noorul Hoda and further for a direction to take necessary corrective measure for ensuring proper functioning of the Madarsa Noorul Hoda.

(iii) For necessary direction upon the respondent State to take appropriate corrective steps in connection with the Madarsa education so that the level of education may be upgraded and in the Madarsas may not go in the hands of some vested interest groups.

(iv) For staying the operation of letter no. 2155 dated 21.09.2021 issued by the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board.

(v) For any other direction, which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. 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 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 litigation. However, in matters that may not be of moment or a litigation essentially directed against one organisation or individual (such as the present litigation which was directed only against Sadananda Gowda and later Jeevaraj was impleaded) ought not to be entertained or should be rarely entertained. Other remedies are also available to public spirited litigants and they should be encouraged to avail of such remedies.

37. In such cases, that might not strictly fall in the category of public interest litigation and for which other remedies are available, insofar as the issuance of a writ of mandamus is concerned, this Court held in Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150: 2004