1999 Supreme(Gau) 218
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
BRIJESH KUMAR AND P. G. AGARWAL, J.
Pranatosh Roy and others -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and others -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 5546 of 1998
Decided On : 24-06-1999
B. K. Das and D. Mazumdar, P.G. Baruah, A. G., Assam, D. P. Chaliha and Ms. R. Chakraborty
The guidelines for entertaining PIL are not applicable to petitions filed in the Court complying with the Rules for filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - GUIDELINES FOR ENTERTAINING - ACT-SECTION REFERRED : NIL - The guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for entertaining letters/petitions as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) are not applicable to petitions filed in the Court complying with the Rules for filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, titled as "Public Interest Litigation", which was referred to the PIL Cell for examination. The PIL Cell concluded that the petition did not fall within the guidelines for entertaining PIL and the decision was approved by the Acting Chief Justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the guidelines for entertaining PIL are applicable to letters/petitions received by the Court, and not to petitions filed in the Court complying with the Rules for filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the petition filed by the petitioners was properly drafted, supported by an affidavit, and was not received as a letter/petition in the nature of PIL.
Issues: Whether the guidelines for entertaining PIL are applicable to petitions filed in the Court complying with the Rules for filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for entertaining letters/petitions as PIL, which provide that the guidelines are applicable to letters/petitions received by the Court, and not to petitions filed in the Court complying with the Rules for filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court directed that the petition filed by the petitioners be registered and listed for admission, ignoring the decision of the PIL Cell. The Court also directed that all such petitions filed in the Registry of the Court on payment of Court-fee and complying with the Rules of the Court will be registered and listed before the appropriate Bench for consideration and orders of the Court.
BRIJESH KUMAR, C. J. :- The above noted petition has been filed challenging the decision of the Public Interest Litigation Cell (PIL Cell) to the effect that the petition filed by the petitioner earlier does not fall within the guidelines provided for entertaining litigation in the public interest.
2. We have heard Shri B. K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri P.G. Baruah, learned Advocate General, Assam and Shri D.P. Chaliha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. It appears that a petition was filed on 16-10-98 by the petitioners, namely, Pranatosh Roy and others which was also titled as against the category "Public Interest Litigation". It appears that due to the said caption "Public Interest Litigation" it was provided that the petition may be placed before the PIL Cell to examine the matter in the light of guidelines as laid down to ascertain whether the matter would be cognizable as PIL or not. The Cell seems to have examined the matter and came to the conclusion that it was not covered by any of the guidelines provided for the purpose. That was also approved by the Honble Acting Chief Justice.
4. On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that the administrative order on the petition filed by the petitioners, in public interest, could not disentitle the petitioners of hearing and the matter should have been considered by the Court. In this connection it may be noted that the guidelines to be followed for entertaining letters/petitions received in the Court as Public Interest Litigation were circulated by the Honble Supreme Court. It contains 10 guidelines and on examination by the PIL Cell it was found that as per the guidelines, the petition would not be cognizable as Public Interest Litigation. Certain matters have been excluded from the purview of Public Interest Litigation as contained in the other 5 guidelines given in that regard. As a matter of fact what appears is that the guidelines as circulated are for the purpose of scrutinising letters/petitions which are received by the Courts as public interest litigation. There is no doubt that some letters/petitions sent to the High Court can well be taken cognizance of and entertained as public interest litigation. But as to keep a check on frivolous letters/petitions some guidelines have been evolved, in the light of which a Cell has been constituted, which scrutinises the letters or the petitions received as to whether they fall in the category of PIL or not. If the Cell comes to the conclusion that the subject-matter is not covered by the guidelines, it will then not be entertained as public interest litigation. The guidelines as provided are given below :
"1. Bonded Labour matters.
2. Neglected children.
3. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers and complaints of violation of Labour Laws (except in individual cases).
4. Petitions from Jails complaining of harassment, for premature release and seeking release after having completed 14 years in Jail, death in Jail (sic) released on personal bond, speedy trial as a right.
5. Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police and death in police custody.
6. Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, bride-burning, rape, murder, kidnapping etc.
7. Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of villagers by co-villagers or by police from persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and economically backward classes.
8. Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbances of ecological balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forest and wild life and other matters of public importance.
9. Petitions from riot-victims.
10. Family pension."
Matters which are not to be entertained as PIL are indicated as below :
"1) Landlord-Tenant matters.
2) Service matter and those pertaining to Pension and Gratuity.
3) Complaints against Central/Stat