Back
2008 Supreme(MP) 799
2008(3) JLJ 361
(FULL BENCH)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J., S.K. Kulshrestha and A.M. Sapre, JJ.
S.P. Anand v. Registrar General, M.P. High Court, Jabalpur
Writ Petition No.5806 of 2006 (Indore);
Decided on 31.7.2008.
Petitioner in person;
R.N. Singh, Advocate General with Ashok Kutumble, Additional
Advocate General, for State;
B.L. Pavecha for High Court Bar Association;
Piyush Mathur, Amicus Curiae.
Headnote:(1) Constitution of India -- Arts.226, 235 and 225 -- States Reorganisation Act, 1956 -- S.54 -- powers conferred u/s 54 on the High Court to make rules and orders relating to practice and procedure -- cannot be exercised by Division Bench under Art.226.
In the present writ petition (WP No.5806 of 2006), the petitioner has reiterated that the order dated 9.9.1999 of the Division Bench in WP No.988 of 1999 was a nullity but has raised a new contention that the Division Bench, while issuing the directions in the order dated 9.9.1999 in WP No. 988 of 1999, was in effect making orders or laying down rules relating to practice and procedure in relation to filing of PILs under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, but the power to make such orders or rules relating to practice and procedure relating to filing of PILs was not vested in a Division Bench of the High Court in the judicial side but was vested in the Full Court of the High Court under section 54 of the State Reorganization Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956"). The petitioner has also reiterated relying on the decision in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others [AIR 1984 SC 802], that no Court fee is payable for enforcement of fundamental rights as a letter petition without any court fee can also be entertained by the Supreme Court as well as by the High Court for enforcement of the fundamental rights of the poor and of the deprived sections of the community. Mr. Ashok Kutumble, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner has been filing PILs only on the basis of information derived from newspapers and such PILs cannot be entertained by the Court.
Considering the aforesaid contentions raised by the parties, the Division Bench passed orders in the present writ petition WP No.5806 of 2006 on 15.4.2008 referring the following substantial questions of law for opinion of a Larger Bench:
(1) Whether 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 can be exercised by the Division Bench of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to lay down the practice and procedure of PIL?
(2) Whether the Division Bench of the High Court could have laid down some rules with regard to practice and procedure relating to PIL in the absence of any such rules and orders issued by the High Court under section 54 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956?
(3) Whether the Division Bench could have laid down the five conditions regarding PIL in the order in the case of S.P. Anand reported in 2001(2)MPLJ 448, when such conditions have not been laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments relating to PIL?
(4) Whether Court fees are payable on a PIL?
(5) Whether PIL can be entertained only on the basis of information published in the newspapers? [Paras 5 & 6
Held : On the first two questions, our opinion is that under Article 225 of the Constitution and section 54 of the Act of 1956, the Chief Justice and all the Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court have the powers to make orders or rules with regard to practice and procedure relating to PILs and the order dated 9.9.1999 of the Division Bench in WP No.988 of 1999 insofar as it has laid down the five conditions for filing of PIL is without jurisdiction. (1978)2 SCC 102 followed. 2001(2) MPLJ 448 held not good law. [Para 9
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts.226 and 225 -- M.P. High Court Rules and Orders -- S.3 -- Letters Patent -- Clause 27 -- States Reorganisation Act, 1956 -- S.54 -- security deposit with PIL -- is not a valid condition. (1978)2 SCC 102 followed. 2001(2) MPLJ 448 held not good law. [Para 11
(3) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- PIL -- court fee is payable in PIL filed as regular writ petition. Writ Petition No.443 of 2005 affirmed. AIR 1984 SC 802 distinguished. [Para 13
(4) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- PIL -- normally cannot be entertained only on basis of information published in newspapers -- Chief Justice or a Judge designate can entertain a PIL only on such basis if it reveals gross violation of a fundamental right of a person who does not have ready access to Court. AIR 1984 SC 802 followed. [Para 14
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226] 235 rFkk 225 && jkT; iquxZBu vf/kfue;] 1956 && /kkjk 54 && mPp U;k;ky; dks /kkjk 54 ds v/khu iznÙk izFkk vkSj izfØ;k ls lacaf/kr fu;e rFkk vkns‘k cukus dh ‘kfDr && [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk vuq-226 ds v/khu iz;qDr ugha dh tk ldrhA
izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk ¼fjV ;kfpdk Ø-5806 lu~ 2006½ esa ;kph us nksgjk;k gS fd fjV ;kfpdk Ø-988 lu~ 1999 esa [kaM U;k;ihB dk vkns‘k fnukad 9-9-1999 ‘kwU; gS] ijarq ;g uohu ladFku fd;k gS fd fjV ;kfpdk Ø-988 lu~ 1999 esa vkns‘k fnukad 9-9-1999 eas funs‘k tkjh djrs le; [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk okLro esa Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuq-226 ds v/khu yksd fgr eqdnes Qkby fd, tkus ds laca/k esa izFkk rFkk izfØ;k ls lacaf/kr vkns‘k fd, tk jgs Fks vFkok fu;e vf/kdfFkr fd, tk jgs ijarq yksd fgr eqdnes Qkby fd, tkus ds laca/k esa izFkk rFkk izfØ;k ls lacaf/kr sls vkns‘k djus vFkok fu;e cukus dh ‘kfDr mPp U;k;ky; dh U;kf;d i{k dh [kaM U;k;ihB esa fufgr ugha gS vfirq jkT; iquxZBu vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼la{ksi ds fy, ^^1956 dk vf/kfu;e**½ dh /kkjk 54 ds v/khu mPp U;k;ky; ds iw.kZ U;k;ky; esa fufgr gSA ;kph us ca/kqvk eqfDr ekspkZ fo- Hkkjr la?k rFkk vU; ¿ , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 802 À] ds fofu‘p; dk voyac ysrs gq, ;g Hkh nksgjk;k gS fd ewy vf/kdkjksa ds izorZu ds fy, U;k;ky; ‘kqYd lans; ugha gS D;ksafd xjhcksa ds rFkk leqnk; ds oafpr oxksZa ds ewy vf/kdkjksa ds izorZu ds fy, mPpre U;k;ky; ds lkFk&lkFk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh U;k;ky; ‘kqYd ds fcuk i=&;kfpdk xzg.k dh tk ldrh gSA jkT; dh vksj ls milatkr fo}ku vij egkf/koDrk Jh v‘kksd dqVqacys us fuosnu fd;k fd ;kph dsoy lekpkji=ksa ls izkIr tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij yksd fgr eqdnes Qkby djrk jgk gS vkSj ,sls yksd fgr eqdnes U;k;ky; }kjk xzg.k ugha fd, tk ldrsA
mHk;i{k }kjk fd, x, iwoksZDr ladFkuksa ij fopkj dj [kaM U;k;ihB us izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk Ø-5806 lu~ 2008 esa fof/k ds fuEufyf[kr lkjoku~ iz‘u c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dh jk; ds fy, funsZf‘kr djs gq, vkns‘k ikfjr fd, %
¼1½ D;k jkT; iquxZBu vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh /kkjk 54 ds v/khu mPp U;k;ky; esa izFkk rFkk izfØ;k ls lacaf/kr fu;e rFkk vkns‘k cukus dh e/; izns‘k mPp U;k;ky; dks iznÙk ‘kfDr mPp U;k;ky; dh [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuq-226 ds v/khu yksd fgr eqdnes dh izFkk RkFkk izfØ;k vf/kdfFkr djus ds fy, iz;qDr dh tk ldrh gS\
¼2½ D;k mPp U;k;ky; dh [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk] mPp U;k;ky; }kjk jkT; iquxZBu vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh /kkjk 54 ds v/khu tkjh fd, x, ,sls fu;eksa vkSj vkns‘kksa ds vHkko esa] yksd fgr eqdnes ds laca/k esa izFkk rFkk izfØ;k ds ckjs esa dqN fu;e vf/kdfFkr fd, tk ldrs Fks\
¼3½ D;k [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk 2010¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 448 esa laizdkf‘kr ,l-ih- vkuan ds ekeys ds vkns‘k esa yksd fgr eqdnes ls lacaf/kr ik¡p ‘krsZa vf/kdfFkr dh tk ldrh Fkha] tcfd ,slh ‘krsZa mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk yksd fgr eqdneksa ls lacaf/kr fu.kZ;ksa esa vf/kdfFkr ugha dh xbZ gSa\
¼4½ D;k yksd fgr eqdnes esa U;k;ky; ‘kqYd lans; gS\
¼5½ D;k yksd fgr eqdnek dsoy lekpkji=ksa esa izdkf‘kr tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij xzg.k fd;k tk ldrk gS\ ¿ iSjk 5 ,oa 6
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izFke nks iz‘uksa ij gekjh jk; gS fd lafo/kku ds vuq-225 vkSj 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 54 ds v/khu e/; izns‘k mPp U;k;ky; ds eq[; U;k;ewfrZ vkSj leLr U;k;k/kh‘kksa dks yksd fgr eqdneksa ds laca/k esa izFkk rFkk izfØ;k ls lacaf/kr vkns‘k djus vFkok fu;e cukus dh ‘kfDr gS rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Ø-988 lu~ 1999 esa [kaM U;k;ihB dk vkns‘k fnukad 9-9-1999] tgk¡ rd mlesa yksd fgr eqdnek Qkby djus ds fy, ik¡p ‘krsZa vf/kdfFkr dh xbZ gSa] vf/kdkfjrkjfgr gSA ¼1978½2 ,l lh lh 102 vuqlfjrA 2001¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 448 ekU; fof/k ugha vfHkfu/kkZfjrA ¿ iSjk 9 ls 11
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 rFkk 225 && e-iz- mPp U;k;ky; fu;e rFkk vkns‘k && /kkjk 3 && ySVlZ isVsaV && [kaM 27 && jkT; iquxZBu vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 54 && yksd fgr ednes ds lkFk lqj{kk fu{ksi && fof/kekU; ‘krZ ugha gSA ¼1978½2 ,l lh lh 102 vuqlfjrA 2001¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 448 ekU; fof/k ugha vfHkfu/kkZfjrA ¿ iSjk 11
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && yksd fgr eqdnek && fu;fer fjV ;kfpdk ds :i esa Qkby fd, x, yksd fgr eqdnes esa U;k;ky; ‘kqYd lans;g gSA fjV ;kfpdk Ø-443 lu~ 2005 vfHkiq"VA , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 802 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 13
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && yksd fgr eqdnek && lkekU;r% dsoy lekpkji=ksa esa izdkf‘kr tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk && eq[; U;k;ewfrZ vFkok inkfHkfgr U;k;k/kh‘k dsoy bl vk/kkj yksd fgr eqndek xzg.k dj ldrs gSa mlls ,sls O;fDr ds ewy vf/kdkj dk ?kksj vfrØe.k izdV gksrk gks ftldh igq¡p esa U;k;ky; ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 802 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 14
Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. 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 Article 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 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 WPNo.988 of 1999 reported in 2001(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 WP 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 recrutinized 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 WP No.988 of 1999 by order dated 9.9.1999.
3. One of the directions issued by the Division Bench in WP No.988 of 1999, quoted above, was that the writ petition filed as PIL shall be companied by security deposit of Rs.2,000/- and unless dispensed with on the recommendation of the Registrar, shall not be processed for listing before the Court. Yet the petitioner filed another writ petition, WP 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 WP No.988 of 1999 was a nullity inasmuch as it was contrary to the judgment in Prem Chand Garg and another v. Excise Commissioner, U.P and others [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 in WP No.988 of 1999 is set aside by a larger Bench or by a Higher Court, another Division Bench was bound to follower the said order.
