S. Serto, J.

Heard Ms. K. Kikhi, learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners in all the P.I.Ls. Also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate for the State respondents in all the P.I.Ls, Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 in all the P.I.Ls except in P.I.L No. 9(K) of 2015, and Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the State respondents in P.I.L No. 9(K) of 2015. We have also heard Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, learned CGC who appeared on behalf of Union of India in P.I.L No. 7(K) of 2016, P.I.L. No. 12(K) of 2016, and P.I.L. No. 10(K) of 2016, and Mr. Yangerwati, learned CGC who also appeared on behalf of the Union of India where Mr. Z.N. Ngullie has not entered appearance.

On 09.03.2017, the above PILs came up before us for admission.

2. The PILs are concerning maintenance of public health standard, addressing of the issues of maternal and infant mortality and implementation of government schemes relating to public health, women and child in particular, improvement of infrastructures like, construction of health centre buildings, providing of equipments, man-power, ambulances and also for providing of medicines etc.

Since, the subject matters in all the PILs are more or less the same they have been clubbed together. All these petitions are filed by eight different individuals.

3. At the very outset Mr. Zhimomi, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3, in PE. No. 9(K) of 2015, raised a preliminary objection on behalf of the respondents by stating that the petitioner has not complied with the requirement of Rule 10(g) of the Gauhati High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2011, and since these rule was framed under the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is mandatory in nature. Therefore, the PILs has to be dismissed for non-compliance of the said rule.

Similarly, Mr. Mozhui, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4, in all the PILs, except in PIL No. 9(K) of 2015, also raised the same preliminary issue and prayed for dismissal of all the PILs on that ground.

Ms. V. Soukhrie, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, who appears on behalf of all the State respondents in all the PILs also submitted on the same line.

Also, heard Ms. K. Kikhi, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of all the petitioners in the PILs. The learned Counsel submitted that PIL is not adversarial litigation but it is a co-operative or collaborative effort by the petitioner, the State or public authority and judiciary to secure observance of constitutional or basic human rights, benefits and privileges upon poor, downtrodden and vulnerable sections of the society. Therefore, there is no need of strictly applying procedural jurisprudence in these PILs. As such, the point of preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel representing the respondents, ought not to be allowed to stand as a stumbling block in admitting the PILs.

4. Before we come to the exact point of objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, we would like to lay down here the background as to how the Rule under which the objection has been raised originated. But, before that it may be worthwhile to briefly state how public interest litigation has evolved.

Hon'ble Supreme Court of our country' in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402, at para 42 to 44, had briefly recorded how PIL has evolved in the judicial system of our country as follows:

"42. The origin and evolution of Public Interest Litigation in India emanated from realization of constitutional obligation by the Judiciary towards the vast sections of the society the poor and the marginalized sections of the society. This jurisdiction has been created and carved out by the judicial creativity and craftsmanship. In M. C. Mehta & Another v. Union of India & Others AIR 1987 SC 1086, this Court observed that Article 32 does not merely confer power on thi