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.

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

1. That the present writ application has been filed by way o Public Interest Litigation in representative capacity on behalf of common villagers who are poor farmers and their sole source of irrigation of about 10-15 thousand acres of land of location falling under jurisdiction of Akbarpur Block of Nawaah District which is “Dashyain Payne” water bodies which is attached from Khuri river and commenced for Pachrukhi of Akbarpur block and passes through Village Lodipur, Sherpur, Shahpur, Pipra, Gopalpur, Derhgaon, Manbigha, Chhootki Ama, Nayapur and Partu Karhari but since bankment and depth of Dashyain Payne which is important water bodies has illegally been encroached by some influential person near Village-Lodipur, Pipra, Sherpur, Pakri even has made certain construction over the same as a result flow of water of water bodies have been obstructed causing much problem to the common poor villagers but despite having apprised about the same to the higher officials of Minor Irrigation Department as well as Respondent Circle Officer, Akbarpur and District Magistrate, Nawadah for initiating proceeding under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act against persons who have illegally encroached and make construction over public land which is in shape of water bodies and get the encroachment removed so that sole source of irrigation of the locality may be smooth but till date no action has been taken. Any other order/orders for granting any other relief/reliefs for which the Petitioner has been found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

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 ca