Court in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Ors
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (PIL) No. 3157 of 2022 --------- Sunil Kumar Mahto, aged about 41 years, son of LC Mahto, resident of Katari Bagan, Samlong, P.O. and P.S. Namkom, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834010. Versus … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment & Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. 3. The Under Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment & Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. 4. Y.K. Das, Fathers name not known to the petitioner at present working as Member Secretary (Additional Charge) Jharkhand Pollution Control Board-cum-Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. --------- ……. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---------- For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State For the Resp. No.4 : Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, Advocate Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate 07/Dated: 25th April, 2024 ----------- 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of quo warranto for setting aside the notification dated 13.07.2021 by which the respondent no.4 has been transferred and posted as Member Secretary (Part Time), Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board by the respondent no.3 2. The office has pointed out the issue of maintainability as per the office note dated 07.07.2022. 3. Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Page 1 of 4 Court in Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 655 wherein it has been laid down that although the public interest litigation is not maintainable so far as the service matters are concerned but barring the writ of quo warranto. 4. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned AC to learned Advocate General has also put reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 707 wherein the ratio has been laid down that the public interest litigation will not be maintainable so far as the service matters are concerned. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties on the issue of maintainability and gone through the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. This Court needs to refer herein the judgment upon which the reliance has been placed on behalf of the learned State counsel, i.e., judgment rendered in the case of Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (supra). 7. It is evident from the said judgment that the ratio has been laid down therein that the public interest litigation is not maintainable in the service matters. Relevant paragraphs needs to be referred herein, i.e., 14-19 which reads as under: the main argument by “14. However, the appellants against entertaining WP (C) No. 1520 of 2001 and WP (C) No. 63 of 2002 is on the ground that a PIL in a service matter is not maintainable. This Court is of the opinion that there is considerable merit in that contention. It is common ground that dispute in this case is over selection and appointment which is a service matter. 15. In Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802] a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters. This Court, speaking through Srinivasan, J. explained the purpose of administrative tribunals created under Article 323-A in the backdrop of extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. This Court held: (SCC p. 281, para 18) “18. … If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the [Administrative] Tribunal, the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated.” Same reasoning applies here as a public interest litigation has been filed when the entire dispute relates to selection and appointment. Page 2 of 4 16. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn. [(2006) 11 SCC 731 (2) : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 548 (2)] this Court held that in service matters only the non-appointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure (see SCC p. 755, para 51 of the Report). 17. This view was very strongly expressed by this Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 1 SCC 590] by pointing out that despite the decision in Duryodhan Sahu [(1998) 7 SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802] , PILs in service matters “continue unabated”. This Court opined that the High Courts should “throw out” such petitions in view of the decision in Duryodhan Sahu [(1998) 7 SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802] (SCC p. 596, para 16). 18. Same principles have been Pandey v. State of W.B. [(2004) 3 SCC 349] (SCC at p. 358, para 16). 19. In a recent decision of this Court delivered on 30-8-2010, in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto [(2010) 9 SCC 655] , it has been held that except in a case for a writ of “quo warranto”, PIL in a service matter is not maintainable (see SCC para 15).” in Ashok Kumar reiterated 8. We have gone through the judgment upon which the reliance has been placed on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Ors. (supra) wherein ratio has been laid down as under paragraph-15 that except for a writ of quo warranto, public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters. 9. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Ors., (2014) 1 SCC 161. 10. This Court taking into consideration the fact that the instant public interest litigation is not a simplicitor public interest litigation challenging the appointment of respondent no.4 rather this writ petition has been filed by way of public interest litigation for issuance of writ of quo warranto. 11. This Court, taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Ors. (supra), is of the view that the issue of maintainability which has been raised by the office, is to be over-ruled. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is maintainable. 13. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned AC to learned Advocate General has submitted that for the same relief, a writ petition has already been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Kanhaiya Kumar Mishra for issuance of writ of quo warranto questioning the appointment Page 3 of 4 of respondent no.4 as Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board being W.P.(C) No. 3619 of 2021. 14. It has also been submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court, considering the matter, has called upon the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand to file counter affidavit vide order dated 12.10.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3619 of 2021, hence, the instant writ petition may be
Decision
disposed of. 15. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. 16. The fact about the issuance of writ of quo warranto to be filed by any person in absence of locus for questioning the appointment of any appointee if the appointment made dehores the rules or contrary to the eligibility conditions, is to be entertained by the learned Single Judge. 17. The fact about the maintainability of quo warranto by way of public interest litigation can also be filed but question herein is that the same issue is under consideration before the learned Single Judge wherein the State has been called upon to file counter affidavit, as such, this Court is of the view that for the same issue, two proceedings will not be just and proper. 18. Further, since this Court is yet to take cognizance in the instant writ petition while in W.P.(C) No. 3619 of 2021, the writ court has already taken cognizance and in that view of the matter also, we are of the view that the instant public interest litigation is to be disposed of. 19. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the issue in view of the fact that the same issue is under consideration before the learned Single Judge. 20. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of without passing any order on merit. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Saurabh/- Page 4 of 4