S. Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

“(i) To issue writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any writ order, direction directing the Respondents particularly, Respondent No. 2 to 5 to henceforth, immediately take action in pursuant to the Inquiry Report dated 20.11.2016 (Anneuxre__) submitted by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, regarding irregularities in appointment & construction work of Respondent No.3. (ii) To issue writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any writ order direction directing the Respondent No. 3 to 5 henceforth to comply the letter No. BAU- 01/2018-19 dated 12.02.2021 issued by the Respondent No.2, in its letter & spirit.

3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the petition stating that the petition is misconceived; raises disputed question of fact; is not in public interest; and that the issue can be best resolved at the local level by the appropriate authorities.

4. 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. 5, the Registrar, Bihar Agriculture University, Sabour, Bhagalpur) 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).

5. 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.

6. 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 vs. State of U.P. [Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. 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 vs. 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