Sanjay Karol, CJ.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 to initiate the encroachment proceedings against the private respondent no. 5 to 9\ Encroachers and decide the encroachment case to its logical conclusion within short span of time by removing the encroachment made by cncroachers/Private respondent no. 5 to 9 over the land bearing CS Khata\RS Khata No. 85/199, CS Plot/RS Khata No. 419/914 area 9 decimal, CS Khata\RS Khata No. 86/199, CS Plot/RS Khata No. 420/908 area 8 decimal, CS Khata/RS Khata No. 86/199, CS Plot /RS Khata No. 395/953 area 16 decimal and CS Khata/RS Khata No. 86/199, CS Plot\RS Khata No. 396\951 area 16 decimal Thana No.626 situated in village Bhadaula, Block- Kudra, District- Kaimur Bhabua, which is recorded in Khatiyan as Gairmajarua Aam Land being as Galai, Chhawar, Garha etc. on the spot.

(ii) For grant of any relief(s) the petitioner would be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. We find that petitioner has an alternative remedy, equally efficacious in term of and under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.

4. Confronted as to why the petitioner has not taken recourse to such remedies, we see no answer forthcoming.

5. We see that the present petition is in the nature of private interest litigation and not public interest litigation, inasmuch as dispute between the private parties stands highlighted. As such, we refrain from issuing any notice.

6. 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.

7. 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