Adya Sharan Chaudhary vs State Of Bihar

This matter is heard via video conferencing.

Heard I.A. No. 01 of 2021 for condonation of delay of 286 days in filing the present L.P.A.

For the reasons stated in the application and affidavit, delay of 286 days in filing the present L.P.A. is condoned. Accord-ingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2021 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No. 457 of 2019

Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General is hereby directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents. He accepts notice on behalf of respondents. The appellant has assailed the order of learned Single Judge dated 11.05.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16126 of 2013.

In the instant Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has sought for the following reliefs:-

"a. To calculate and sanction the honorarium of the Petitioner – who has worked as Judicial Member at the Perma-nent Lok Adalat Kaimur at Bhabhua – for the period of 07.05.2010 to 1704.2013; in accordance with the Regulation 39 of the Bihar State Legal Services Authority Regu-lation 1998.

b. And further to pay the amount accrued to the Petitioner, after deducting the amount, already paid to the Petitioner."

In support of the aforesaid relief, there is no representa-tion before the competent authority that he had a statutory right to claim certain honorarium in terms of Regulation 39 of the Bihar State Legal Services Authority Regulation, 1998 (for short "Regu-lation 1998"). The appellant is disputing to certain extent that he is entitled to certain amount in terms of Regulation 39 on the other hand authorities have not adhered to Regulation 39 of Regulation, 1998. In this regard, before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 the appellant has failed to submit a detailed representation before the competent authority to the extent that there is an error in settling honararium in terms of Regulation 39. In the ab- sence of demand read with the statutory right vested with the ap- pellant before the competent authority writ itself is not maintain-able in the light of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Mani Subrat Jain vs. State of Haryana reported in (1977) 1 SCC 486. In paragraph 9, it is held as under:-

"9. The High Court rightly dis-missed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something."

Learned Single Judge should have rejected the appel-lant's writ petition at threshold in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Mani Subrata Jain (supra).

In the light of these facts and circumstances, the appel-lant is hereby directed to submit a detailed representation before the competent authority in establishing his vested right that he is entitled to a particular amount towards honararium in the light of Regulation 39 of Regulation, 1998. If such representation is sub-mitted within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order, thereafter, the competent authority is hereby directed to take note of appellant's representation and proceed to pass speak-ing order and communicate the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the appellant's representation. The order of the learned Single Judge would not come in the way of deciding the appellant's representation by the competent author-ity.

Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 457 of 2019 stands disposed off.