Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 426
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu and Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
Mukesh Yadav v. Union of India & Others
Writ Petition No. 2863 of 2019 (Gwalior);
Decided on 5.11.2019
P. K. Pachori for petitioner; M. K. Sharma for respondent No. 1/Union of India; F. A. Shah, Government Advocate for State.
Headnote:
(1) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 39A -- public interest litigation -- known as "Social Interest Litigation" -- PIL may be moved by public spirited citizen for public cause by invoking writ jurisdiction of superior Courts -- concept of public interest litigation is in consonance with principles enshrined in Art. 39A to protect and deliver prompt social justice -- has to be proved to satisfaction of Court that petition is filed for public interest and not as frivolous litigation for pecuniary gain -- in case of frivolous PIL, Court has jurisdiction to impose substantial costs on petitioner -- PIL gives wider description to fundamental rights enshrined in Constitution -- functions as effective measure for changes in society for its welfare -- when any public cause or public interest is involved, PIL may be filed. AIR 1981 SC 298, (1976) 3 SCC 832, AIR 1962 SC 149, AIR 1979 SC 1369, (1982) 2 SCC 583, 1995 KHC 486, (1997) 6 SCC 241, (2003) 8 SCC 369, AIR 1987 SC 965 and AIR 1989 SC 2039 discussed. [Paras 5, 9 to 11 & 16]
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226, 21 and 39A -- public interest litigation -- no level crossing or Road Over Bridge (ROB)/Road Under Bridge (RUB) where railway tracks cross road -- fundamental right to life of citizens including school-going children under threat -- State and its functionaries cannot take refuge of shortage/constraint of funds to justify their inaction -- petition allowed -- respondents directed to take immediate steps for construction of ROB/RUB as per policy on or near level crossing, within four months. AIR 1986 SC 180, (1876) 94 US 113, AIR 1981 SC 746 and (2012) 6 SCC 502 referred to. [Paras 28 & 30]
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 rFkk 39d & yksd fgr eqdnek & ^^lkekftd fgr eqdnes** ds :i esa Kkr & yksd fgr eqdnek yksdfgr Hkko ;qDr }kjk ofj"B U;k;ky;ksa dh fjV vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; ysrs gq, lkoZtfud fgr ds fy, ÁLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gS & yksdfgr eqdnes dh ladYiuk dk vuqPNsn 39d esa Áfrf"Bkfir laj{k.k vkSj rkRdkfyd U;k; djus ds fl)karksa ls lkeatL; gS & U;k;ky; ds lek/kku gsrq lkfcr fd;k tkuk gksrk gS fd ;kfpdk yksd fgr esa ÁLrqr dh xbZ gS] og /kuh; ykHk ds fy, rqPN eqdnek ugha gS & rqPN eqdnes dh n'kk esa U;k;ky; dks ;kph ij lkjoku~ O;; vf/kjksfir djus dh vf/kdkfjrk gS & yksdfgr eqdnes esa lafo/kku esa Áfr"Bkfir ewy vf/kdkjksa dk c`gÙkj fu:i.k gksrk gS & og lekt ds dY;k.k ds fy, lekt esa ifjorZu ds ÁHkkoh mik; ds :i esa dk;Z djrk gS & dksbZ lkoZtfud fgr vFkok yksd fgr varoZfyr gks rks yksdfgr eqdnek ÁLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 298] ¼1976½ 3 ,l lh lh 832] , vkb vkj 1962 ,l lh 149] , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 1369] ¼1982½ 2 ,l lh lh 583] 1995 ds ,p lh 486] ¼1997½ 6 ,l lh lh 241] ¼2003½ 8 ,l lh lh 369] , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 965 rFkk , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 2039 foosfprA ¼iSjk 5] 9 ls 11 ,oa 16½
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226] 21 rFkk 39d & yksdfgr eqdnek & tgk¡ jsyiFk ekxZ ls feyrk gS ogk¡ le ikj vFkok jksM vksojfczt ¼vkj vks ch½@jksM vaMj fczt ¼vkj ;w ch½ ugha & fo|ky; tkus okys cPpksa lfgr ukxfjdksa ds thou dk vf/kdkj ladVe; & jkT; rFkk mlds ÑR;dkjh viuh fuf"Ø;rk dks mfpr Bgjkus ds fy, fuf/k dh deh@etcwjh dh 'kj.k ugha ys ldrs & ;kfpdk eatwj & ÁR;FkhZx.k dks pkj ekl ds Hkhrj uhfr ds vuqlkj le ikj ij vFkok mlds fudV vkj vks ch@vkj ;w ch lfUufeZr djus ds fy, vfoyac dne mBkus dk funs'kA , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 180] ¼1876½ 94 ;w ,l 113] , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 746 rFkk ¼2012½ 6 ,l lh lh 502 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 28 ,oa 30½
ORDER
Shrivastava, J.--1. This petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief:
^^1-1 pkgh xbZ lgk;rk%
;kfpdkdrkZ ÁkFkZuk djrk gS fd ÁLrqr tufgr ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj Áfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd xzkeh.ktu ds ekxZ ds fy, nfr;k >k¡lh jsyos ykbZu ij xsV QkVd ;k vaMj vksoj fczt dk fuekZ.k fd, gsrq vkns'k ikfjr djus dh Ñik djsA**
2. It is submitted through the petition that there is no level crossing or Road Over Bridge (ROB)/Road Under Bridge (RUB) where the railway tracks cross the Chituwa Rawatpur Datia road compelling the villagers, school children and cattle, in large number to use the unmanned railway crossing thereby puttin their lives to jeopardy. It is also submitted that schools are located at the other side of the railway track where the school going children frequently cross the unmanned railway track. The villagers of the nearby villages, for the redressal of grievance, had earlier made representation before the Collector, District Datia (Annexure P-1) and before the D.R.M. (Annexure P-2). The petitioner has also filed copies of the news cuttings, wherein the demand of level crossing has been highlighted. Yet, nothing has been done by the railways as well as the State Government. Hence, this probono publico petition has been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
4. The present matter refers to the issue which relates to not only public importance but also lives of citizens including children and so also cattle, thereby attracting Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. “Public Interest Litigation” is knows as “Social Interest Litigation”. The concept of “Public Interest Litigation” was conceived by Hon. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Socialist Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 298), wherein an unregistered association of workers was permitted to institute a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for redressal of their common grievances. In other words, “Public Interest Litigation” may be moved by public spirited citizen to the Court for the public cause by invoking writ jurisdiction of the superior Courts.
6. The traditional rule of locus standi that a person whose right is affected alone can file a petition which has been laid down by the apex Court in various decisions. Now the Courts permit “Public Interest Litigations” at the instances of public spirited citizens for the enforcement of constitutional legal rights.
7. Now the PILs have achieved the place of importance in our legal system. In India, the first PIL was filed in the year 1976 Mumbai Kamgar Sangh v. M/s Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and others, [1976 (3) SCC 832]. The seed of PIL was sown by Justice Iyer through this landmark judgment. Thereafter, Hon. Justice Bhagwati evolved the concept of PIL and developed it to great extent.
8. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (AIR 1962 SC 149), Hon'ble the apex Court defined the term “Public Interest Litigation” in the Indian context. Thereafter, various prisoners of Bihar Jail had filed a petition before the Supreme Court Bench headed by Hon. Justice Bhagwati which was registered as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (AIR 1979 SC 1369), wherein Hon'ble the apex Court has held that the prisoners should be given benefits of free legal aid and speedy hearing. Thereafter,
9. The concept of “Public Interest Litigation” (PIL) is in consonance with the principles enshrined in Article 39A of the Constitution of India to protect and deliver prompt social justice. Prior to the year 1980, the locus standi was prominent in India Judicial System and only aggrieved party would approach to the Courts of justice. After the emergency era, the High Court reached out to the people devising the means for any person of the public to approach the Courts seeking legal remedy where public interest is involved. There are various instances when letters
