Back
2008 Supreme(Gau) 624
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ranjan Gogoi and Brojendra Prasad Katakey, JJ.
North East Plains People Traders and Youth Federation (PPTYF) and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Union and India (UOI) Ors. - Respondent
Decided On : 27.08.2008
Headnote:
Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 2 - Challenged in the present writ application – Acquittal - To give effect to provisions of Regulation and for due enforcement thereof Government of Mizoram from time to time has framed guidelines in exercise of powers conferred by Section 2 of Regulation - In so far as present case is concerned guidelines published by Notification which are presently holding field and under challenge in present writ petition will be required to be noticed – Held, Has submitted that in aforesaid decisions Apex Court has clearly laid down law that person who seeks to move Court by means of a Public Interest Litigation must have no individual interest in subject matter of writ petition and exercise must be justified on touchstone of rendering social justice to a large number of citizens who are unable to come to Court on their own – Above test which is cardinal to maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation is not satisfied in present case inasmuch as clearly and evidently members of petitioner Association have a distinct interest in subject matter of writ petition - To espouse such grievance petitioner Association should have instituted a regular writ petition instead of a Public Interest Litigation - Beyond interest of its individual members which has been espoused petitioner Association seeks to raise grievance of some unknown persons who are not even its members - Who are these persons how is petitioner Association interested in their alleged rights - Why the aforesaid persons have come and such other incidental questions have not been answered – Therefore has argued that very approach of petitioner Association by means of present writ application is questionable and apparently lacks in bonfire – Petition dismissed
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. The writ petitioner is an Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having its registered office at Silchar within the State of Assam. The petitioner Association claims to represent the non-Mizo/non-tribal traders of Assam having business in Mizoram, particularly, in the districts of Aizawl and Lunglei. Most of the members of the petitioner Association, it is claimed, are permanent residents of the three districts in the Barak Valley of the State of Assam i.e. Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi. In the present writ application, the petitioner Association seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of the Eastern Bengal Frontier Regulation, 1873, hereinafter referred to as the Inner Line Regulation. The guidelines for the enforcement of the said Inner Line Regulation framed by the State of Mizoram in exercise of powers conferred by Section 2 of the aforesaid Regulation and published on 1.9.2006 has also been challenged in the present writ application.
2. The Inner Line Regulation had been initially introduced by the then Secretary of State for India in the eastern most frontier areas of the province of Bengal, of which Assam had then been a part. It was made applicable to the districts of Kamrup, Darrang, Nagaon, Sivasagar, Lakhimpur and subsequently extended to other areas of the then province of Assam which today comprises the States of Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. Specifically the Regulation was extended to the then Lusai Hills district of the State of Assam (presently the State of Mizoram) on and from 28.8.1930. The detailed objects for introduction of the aforesaid Regulation to the areas in question need not detain the Court, save and except that such introduction was designed to protect the tribal people inhabiting the areas in question from increasing social and economic exploitation and prevent the prospect of incessant invasion into their independent domain. The said Regulation, it must be noticed, was adapted under the Government of India Act, 1935 and, thereafter, under the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950. The said Regulation was again adapted under the North-Eastern Areas (Re-organization) Act, 1971 and has continued to hold the field in the absence of any decision of the State Legislature of Mizoram either to repeal or amend the enactment.
3. To give effect to the provisions of the Regulation and for due enforcement thereof, the Government of Mizoram from time to time, has framed guidelines in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Regulation. In so far as the present case is concerned, the guidelines published by the Notification dated 1.9.2006 which are presently holding the field and under challenge in the present writ petition, will be required to be noticed. In view of the issues that have arisen in the present writ petition, the relevant provisions of the guidelines with a brief analysis of the same may be set out below :
1. Authorities for issue of Inner Line Pass (hereinafter referred to as ILP) :
(1) Regular ILP: The Deputy Commissioner of Aizawl District, Lunglei District, Kolasib District, Mamit District, Serchhip District, Champai District, Lawngtlai District and Saiha District or any other concerned subordinate officer authorized by them on their behalf shall be competent to issue regular ILP for a period not exceeding 6(six) months, subject to the availability of a sponsor who is a bonafide indigenous resident.
(2) Temporary ILP: The Resident Commissioner, Government of Mizoram at New Delhi, the Liaison Officer, Silchar, Shillong, Guwahati, Kolkata, the Deputy Superintendent of Police in-charge of Airport Security at Lengpui, Officer-in-charge of Kanhmun Police Station, Administrative Officer, Bairabi and Sub Divisional Officer (C), Ngopa are authorized to issue Temporary ILP in Form E for a period not exceeding 159fifteenO days, to bonafide visitors/tourists or business representatives with intimation to the concerned Deputy Com
