Back
2003 Supreme(P&H) 845
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Binod Kumar Roy, CJ with S.S. Nijjar, J.
Sukhdev Singh and another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana through Commissioner and Secretary Government of Haryana, Department of Environment, Mines and Geology and others - Respondents
Amended Civil Writ Petition No. 12919 of 1999.
Decided On : 30 May, 2003
For the Petitioners:Mr. J.K. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Randhir Singh, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7:Mr. H.S. Mattewal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate.
Public Interest Litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz., litigation in the interest of the public.
Headnote:
Writ petitions filed in public interest are not to be taken by the courts on its face value. Courts have to examine as to whether the petition has been bonafide presented to protect any of the Fundamental Rights or to root out any particular menace in the society. Public Interest Litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz., litigation in the interest of the public.
Fact of the Case:
Three writ petitions were filed in public interest challenging the Notification dated 30.10.1998 and for the issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders for closing the stone crushers operating in Gurgaon region outside the Notified Crushing Zone, without obtaining "No Objection Certificates." They were particularly aggrieved by reduction of the minimum limit to 400 meters from village abadi from the 1000 meters which has been prescribed in the Notification dated 9.6.1992.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petitions were not filed in public interest but were filed at the instance of stone crushers which are operating beyond the limit of 850 meters from the village abadi, but within the 1 KM limit. The court also found that the petitioners had abused the process of the court by filing the writ petitions in the name of Public Interest Litigation.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petitions were filed in public interest? 2. Whether the petitioners had abused the process of the court by filing the writ petitions in the name of Public Interest Litigation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the writ petitions were not filed in public interest as they were filed at the instance of stone crushers which are operating beyond the limit of 850 meters from the village abadi, but within the 1 KM limit. 2. The court held that the petitioners had abused the process of the court by filing the writ petitions in the name of Public Interest Litigation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions with costs of Rs. 2000/- each.
S.S. Nijjar, J. - This judgment will dispose of CWPs No. 12191 of 1999, 17168 of 1998 and 8121 of 1999. It is claimed that the writ petitions have been filed in public interest.
2. The Supreme Court pioneered the concept of Pubic Interest Litigation (PIL) for the effective enforcement of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.
3. Public Interest Litigation was initially resorted to ventilate the grievances of the poor, ignorant and socially disadvantaged segments of the Indian Society. By normal process, many weaker sections of the society are not able to reach the portals of justice due to the normally tardy and expensive procedure of law. Public Interest Litigation was resorted to for protecting the human rights of the weaker sections of the Indian Society guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But this sphere of public interest litigation has grown many fold over the last few years. The Supreme Court has, therefore, had to lay down, on a number of occasions the guidelines in which a particular matter may be treated as Public Interest Litigation. Merely because a writ petition is stated to be filed in Public Interest Litigation is not to be taken by the courts on its face value. The Courts have to examine as to whether the petition has been bonafide presented to protect any of the Fundamental Rights or to root out any particular menace in the society. In the case BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 350, the Supreme Court observed as under :-
"76. Public Interest Litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the Court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker section of the community who were not in a position to protect their own interest. Public Interest Litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz., litigation in the interest of the public.
77. While PIL initially was invoked mostly in cases connected with the relief to the people and the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was violation of human rights under Article 21, but with the passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other spheres. Prof. S.B. Sathe has summarised the extent of the jurisdiction which has now been exercised in following words :-
"PIL may, therefore, be described as satisfying one or more of the following parameters. These are not exclusive but merely descriptive :-
*Where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared widely by a large number of people (bonded labour, under trial prisoners, prison inmates).
*Where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society (Women, Children, bonded labour unorganised labour etc.).
*Where judicial law making is necessary to avoid exploitation (iner-country adoption, the education of the children of the prostitutes).
*Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions (independence of the judiciary, existence of grievance redressal forums).
*Where administrative decision related to development are harmful to the resources such as air or water."
78. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that Public Interest Litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counter- productive.
79. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for
