The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a liberal approach in entertaining public interest litigation related to good governance and the principles of mandamus, including the need for a distinct demand and refusal before issuing a writ of mandamus.

JUDGMENT :

S. KUMAR, J.

Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

i. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directioins in the nature of Public Interest Litigation for direction upon the respondents to inquired into the matter through the enquiry committee during the compensation Disbursement Distribution scam in Flood Relief Money Distribution in the Rural Area, a big scam has flood effected people are no suffering with relief material scam the State Government has incur raise the loss of beneficiary damage mainly for this flood affected area and during the money distribution there is a large number scale irregularities were committed by the Concerned Respondents including the Ward Member of Under Gram Panchayat Chirauri, Bhabhanpura Tola, Ward No.9 and in other ward there is serious defalcation of the Government Money which is committed by the Mukhiya as well as the Ward Member of Under Gram Panchayat Chausa District-Madhepur, And a list of fake persons, they are not belongs to inhabitant of Under Gram Panchayat Chirori they have got the benefit of Compensation with the help of Ward Member and Mukhiya.

ii. For further Prayed for direction upon the Respondents to call for the report regarding the list of beneficiary Flood Relief Compensation Disbursement Distribution under gram Panchayat Chirauri, Bhabhanpura Tola, Under Block Chausa, District-Madhepura, So that to submit the report regarding the list of beneficiary, because in the aforesaid list the name of Fake Persons have been appeared handling the Flood relief fund, which carried out probe into the scam reported irregularities of said fund and altogether 335 (Three Hundred thirty Five) beneficiaries, they have received the Compensation Disbursement Distribution amount illegally at serial no. 270, 271, 240, 241, 242, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283 and 304, while they have non-deserving for getting the Compensation Distribution Amount. The name of the said persons has not appeared in the B.P.L. Ration Card List issued by the Government to household who are living Below Poverty Line and their family income is less than Rs.24,000/- per annum. But they have got the benefit of flood relief, and the original deserving beneficiaries their name have been appeared in the B.P.L. Ration Card List, they have not recived the Flood Relief Distribution Amount.

iii. For further direction upon the Respondents after proper enquiry in the Flood Relief Compensation Disbursement Distribution amount, if found taken to be true then in such circumstances a direction has been issued to concerned Respondent to immediately institute the criminal case against the responsible persons, who committed the misappropriation in Government Money.

iv. For further any other relief/reliefs, order/orders, direction/directions may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of this case.

2. 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. [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 w