PILs do not require scholarly research and can be entertained to address social problems affecting the public, emphasizing the duty to eliminate petitions filed for private interests.

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. These writ petitions have been filed as Public Interest Litigations (in short ‘PILs’). The prayers of the writ petitioners are for a direction on the respondent authorities to take appropriate measures to check the spread of Dengue in the State of West Bengal and for providing adequate medical facilities for the treatment of those afflicted with the disease. After we heard learned Counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners, we had directed the State Government to file a report in the form of an affidavit disclosing the number of Dengue affected patients who succumbed to the disease as also the steps that were taken by the Government for combating the disease. Such a report dated 9 November 2017 was filed in this Court. Thereafter, we heard other learned Counsel appearing in support of the other writ petitions. After all the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners concluded their respective submissions, learned Adv. General appearing for the State took a preliminary point of maintainability of these writ petitions as PIL. Learned Adv. General argued at length as to why according to him, these PILs are not maintainable and should be rejected in limine. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners on the point of maintainability of these writ petitions.

2. We need not have decided the point of maintainability as a preliminary point since the same was not taken before the writ petitioners made their submissions on merits. The point of maintainability was raised on behalf of the State only after the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners concluded their submissions on merits. However, since we have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length on the point of maintainability, we deem it proper to express our opinion on that issue before passing any further order on these matters.

3. Learned Adv. General challenged the maintainability of these writ petitions primarily on two grounds. Firstly, he submitted that the writ petitions have been filed on the basis of newspaper reports regarding the spread of Dengue. Newspaper reports are not admissible evidence. A PIL based on newspaper reports is not maintainable. Secondly, he submitted that it has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that before a party approaches the High Court by filing a PIL, he must do adequate research and must disclose sufficient materials before the Court in support of his grievance made in the writ petition. He submitted that the instant writ petitions are not supported by any evidence. The writ petitioners have not taken the trouble of doing any research work. Merely on the basis of newspaper reports the writ petitions have been filed. The writ petitioners are only looking for publicity. No public interest is involved in the present writ petitions.

4. In support of his submission, learned Adv. General relied on the following decisions:-

(i) Ravinder Kumar Sharma, (1999) 7 SCC 435 para 26.

(ii) Union of India Vs. Major S. P. Sharma, (2014) 6 SCC 351, paras 18 & 89

(iii) Kushum Lata Vs. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180.

(iv) Holicow Pictures (Private) Limited. Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra, (2007) 14 SCC 281.

(v) Dr. B. Singh Vs. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 363, para 3.

(vi) S. P. Anand Vs. H. D. Deve Gowda, AIR 1997 SC 272 para 18.

5. Mr. Rabi Shankar Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in WP 26756 (W) of 2017 (Anindya Sundar Das Vs. Union of India) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of People’s Union For Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235, in support of his submission that even a letter written by a member of a society drawing attention of the Court to an issue of public concern can be treated as a PIL. In this connection learned Counsel also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sudipt Mazumdar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1983) 2 SCC 258.

6. Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for KMC in WP 26892 (W) of