The court emphasized the principles of compensating damages and the importance of procedural technicalities in public interest litigation and the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

Petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):

“That the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed for making necessary amendments in the Resolution of the Home Department Bihar Government vide Resolution no. 8960 dated 30.09.2013 by which the maximum limit of compensation payable in the instances of terrorism/communal/caste/election/collective violence resulting in destruction of houses/shops is only Rs. 2.5 lakh, in the light of the basic principles as suggested by Nariman Committee in Writ petition (Crl.) no. 77/2007 “Destruction of public and private properties vs State of A.P. and others” and “State of Gujrat vs I.R.C.G. and ors.” (civil appeal no. 3249/2016) reported in 2018(2013) SCC 687 which holds that where any injury to the property is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given for reparation by way of damages the court should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the party who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation and for any other relief or reliefs the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. 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.

3. After the matter was heard for some time, finding the Bench not to be agreeable with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners, under instructions, states that petitioners shall be content if a direction is issued to the authority concerned to consider and decide the representation which the petitioners shall be filing within a period of four weeks from today for redressal of the grievance(s).

4. Learned counsel for the respondents states that if such a representation is filed by the petitioners, 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.

5. 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 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 [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,