Back
2008 Supreme(MP) 800
A. K. PATNAIK, C. J., S. K. KULSHRESTHA AND A. M. SAPRE, JJ.
S. P. Anand
Versus
Registrar General, M.P. High Court, Jabalpur.
W.P. No. 5806 of 2006
Decided on : 31-7-2008.
Petitioner In Person, R.N. Singh, Advocate General, Ashok Kutumble, Addl. Advocate General for State, B.L. Pavecha, Sr. Advocate for High Court Bar Association, Piyush Mathur, Amicus Curiae.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Division Bench did not have the jurisdiction to lay down rules for filing PILs, and it clarified the circumstances under which court-fees are payable on a PIL and when a PIL can be entertained based on information published in newspapers.
Headnote:
PIL - Pension Grant Challenge - M.P. Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan Tatha Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam - Section 54 of the Act of 1956, Article 225 Constitution of India - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the powers conferred under Section 54 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 on the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to make rules and orders relating to practice and procedure in the High Court, and the validity of the conditions for filing PILs laid down by a Division Bench. The court also addressed the issue of court-fees payable on a PIL and whether a PIL can be entertained only on the basis of information published in the newspapers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a series of writ petitions challenging the grant and payment of pension to Ex-Legislators of the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the vires of the M.P. Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan Tatha Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam. The Division Bench issued directions to regulate filing of PILs, including a security deposit requirement, which the petitioner contested.
Finding of the Court:
The Division Bench's directions for filing PILs, including the security deposit requirement, were held to be without jurisdiction. The court also ruled that court-fees are payable on a PIL, except in specific circumstances, and that a PIL can be entertained based on information published in newspapers if it reveals gross violation of a fundamental right.
Issues: The court addressed the jurisdiction of the Division Bench to lay down rules for filing PILs, the requirement of court-fees for PILs, and the basis for entertaining a PIL solely on the basis of information published in newspapers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Division Bench did not have the jurisdiction to pass the directions for filing PILs, including the security deposit requirement. It also clarified the circumstances under which court-fees are payable on a PIL and when a PIL can be entertained based on information published in newspapers.
Final Decision: The court held that the Division Bench's directions for filing PILs were without jurisdiction and that the existing rules for proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution made by the High Court of Judicature, Nagpur, will continue to apply until replaced or amended by rules made by the High Court of M.P. in exercise of its powers under Section 54 of the Act of 1956 read with Article 225 of the Constitution.
A. K. PATNAIK, C. J. :-
This is a reference made to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court in a pending Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The relevant facts for appreciating why the reference has been made to the Full Bench are that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 988 of 1999 as a Public Interest Litigation (for short 'PIL') challenging the grant and payment of pension to Ex-Legislators of the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the vires of the M.P. Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan Tatha Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam. A Division Bench of this Court hearing the PIL found that the issue raised in the PIL had already been settled by another Division Bench of this Court in Raghu Thakur v. State, AIR 1997 MP 223 and the grant and payment of pension to Ex-Legislators had been held as intra vires the Constitution.
The Division Bench further held in the order dated 9-9-1999 in W.P. No. 988 of 1999 reported in 2000 (2) MPLJ 448 : 2000 (1) MPHT 203 that the petitioner was still persisting in his efforts to file series of writ petitions on constitutional and other issues which stood settled only to hog publicity. The Division Bench also held in the order dated 9-9-1999 in W.P. No. 988 of 1999 that the PIL media in this way is being used contrary to the purpose for which it was evolved, namely, redressal of public injury and hence, it was necessary to regulate filing of PIL before the Court and accordingly issued the following directions :
"(1) A "PIL" shall disclose petitioner's social public standing/professional status and his public spirited antecedents and specify the nature of cause and interest involved. It shall be supported by an affidavit on each averments/allegation and contain a statement/declaration that issue raised was not dealt with or decided and that a similar or identical petition was not filed earlier;
(2) It shall be accompanied by a security deposit of Rs. 2,000/- and unless dispensed with on the recommendation of Registrar, shall not be processed for listing before the Court;
(3) It shall be scrutinized by the Registrar to ascertain the status/standing of petitioner and the nature of cause disclosed in it and in case it was found wanting in either respect and was not supported by some prima facie proof wherever warranted, Registrar shall return the petition for making up the deficiency to his satisfaction;
(4) If petitioner was aggrieved by the order of Registrar, he/she could take appeal to the Court on deposit of Rs. 500/-; and
(5) Media, both print and electronic are required to desist from publishing the subject-matter of any "PIL" unless its cognizance was taken by the Court by issuing notice to respondents."
After issuing the aforesaid directions, the Division Bench dismissed the PIL W.P. No. 988 of 1999 by order dated 9-9-1999.
3. One of the directions issued by the Division Bench in W. P. No. 988 of 1999, quoted above, was that the writ petition filed as PIL shall be accompanied by security deposit of Rs. 2000/- and unless dispensed with on the commendation of the Registrar, shall not be processed for listing before the Court. Yet the petitioner filed another writ petition, W.P. No. 1882 of 2000 without depositing the security amount and contended before another Division Bench of this Court that the order dated 9-9-1999 of the Division Bench in W. P. No. 988 of 1999 was a nullity inasmuch as it was contrary to the judgment in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U. P., AIR 1963 SC 996 in which the Supreme Court has held that the Rules framed by the Supreme Court requiring deposit of security amount is in violation of the fundamental right guaranteed to citizens to move the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution and was, thus, invalid, but the Division Bench held that unless the order dated 9-9-1999 passed in W. P. No. 988 of 1999 is set aside by a larger Bench or by a higher Court, another Division Bench was bound to fol
