Back
2009 Supreme(MP) 473
(FULL BENCH)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J., A.M. Sapre and A.K. Saxena, JJ.
Satya Pal Anand v. Registrar General, High Court M.P. and
another
Miscellaneous Civil Case No.640 of 2008 (Indore);
Decided on 18.4.2009.
Petitioner in person;
A.S. Kutumbale, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Mamta
Shandilya, Panel Lawyer for State;
Piyush Mathur, Amicus Curiae.
Headnote:Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- writ petition filed as PIL - no court-fees can be dispensed with -- however letter of poor person, etc. treated as PIL - court-fees can be dispensed with under the direction of Chief Justice.
We have perused the decisions cited by the petitioner and in none of the decisions the Supreme Court has held that no court-fee is payable on a PIL, although it has been held that a letter addressed by poor or disadvantaged person or by social activist group on their behalf can maintain as a public interest litigation on the directions of the Chief Justice. No provision of Act, rule or any other law has been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner enabling the High Court to dispense with court-fees on a regular writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed as a PIL. Hence, in our opinion, the view taken by the Full Bench in the order dated 31.7.2008 that court-fees are payable on a PIL filed as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution except where the Chief Justice or a Judge designate directs on the basis of information received in a letter or any other document and considers that it is a fit case for registering a case even though no court-fee is paid on such letter or document is correct. 2008(3) JLJ 361 affirmed. 1981 (Supp.) SCC 87, AIR 1982 SC 1473, (1984)3 SCC 161 and (1987) 1 SCC 395 distinguished. [Para 5
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && yksdfgr eqdnesa dh Hkk¡fr Qkby fjV ;kfpdk && U;k;ky; Qhl dh NwV ugha nh tk ldrh && rFkkfi] fu/kZu O;fDr ds i= vkfn dks yksdfgr eqdnek ekuk tkus dh fLFkfr esa && eq[; U;k;ewfrZ ds funs‘k ds v/khu U;k;ky; Qhl ls NwV nh tk ldrh gSA
;kph }kjk izks)`r fu.kZ;ksa dks geus ifj‘khyu fd;k gS vkSj mPpre U;k;ky; ds fdlh Hkh fu.kZ; esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd fdlh yksdfgr eqdnesa esa U;k;ky; Qhl ns; ugha gS] ;|fi ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd fu/kZu vFkok izfrdwy ifjfLFkfr okys O;fDr }kjk Hksts x, i= ij ls vFkok mudh vksj ls vFkok fdlh lkekftd lfdz; lewg }kjk] eq[; U;k;ewfrZ ds funsZ‘k ij yksdfgr ;kfpdk ekU; dh tk ldrh gSA ;kph }kjk vf/kfu;e] fu;e vFkok fdlh vU; fof/k dk dksbZ mica/k bl U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha yk;k x;k tks vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu yksdfgr ;kfpdk dh Hkk¡fr Qkby dh xbZ fu;efr fjV ;kfpdk ij mPp&Uk;ky;] U;k;ky; Qhl dh NwV iznku djus dks leFkZ cukrk gksA blfy, gekjh jk; esa iw.kZ U;k;ihB ds vkns‘k fnukad 31-7-2008 esa viuk;k x;k n`f"Vdks.k lgh gSA Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu yksdfgr ;kfpdk dh Hkk¡fr Qkby dh x;h ;kfpdk ij U;k;ky; Qhl ns; gS] tc rd eq[; U;k;ewfrZ vFkok ukeksfn~nV U;k;k/kh‘k i= }kjk izkIr tkudkjh vFkok vU; fdUgha nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij vkSj ;g fopkj djds fd ekeyk jftLVªhd`r fd, tkus ds fy, mi;qDr gS] Hkys&gh ,sls i= vFkok nLrkost U;k;ky; Qhl dk lank; ugha fd;k x;k gks] oSlk funs‘k ugha nsrkA 2008¼3½ ts ,y ts 361 vfHkiq"VA 1981 ¼lIyh-½ ,l lh lh 87] , vkb vkj 1982 ,l lh 1473] ¼1984½3 ,l lh lh 161 rFkk ¼1987½1 ,l lh lh 305 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 5½
Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. This is a petition for review of the order of the Full Bench [2008(3) JLJ 361], dated 31.7.2008 in Writ Petition No.5806/2006.
2. The background facts briefly are that Writ Petition No.988/l999 was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (for short "PIL") in this Court 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 M.P. 223], and the grant and payment of pension to Ex-Legislators had been held as intra vires the Constitution and while disposing of the writ petition by order dated 9.9.1999 issued some directions for regulating filing of PIL in this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5806/2006 contending that the order dated 9.9.1999 of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.9881/999 was a nullity inasmuch as it laid down the rules relating to practice and procedure in relation to filing of PlLs under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the power to lay down rules relating to practice and procedure of the High Court vested in the Full Court of the High Court under section 54 of the State Re-organisation Act, 1956. The Division Bench hearing the writ petition referred several questions of law which arose for decision in Writ Petition No.5806/2006 for opinion of a larger Bench and these substantial questions of law included the question whether the powers conferred under section 54 of the State Re-organisation Act, 1956 on the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to make Rules and Orders relating to practice and procedure 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 and whether court-fees are payable on a PIL?
3. The substantial questions of law were referred to the Full Bench and the Full Bench in order dated 31.7.2008 held that under Article 225 of the Constitution and section 54 of the State Re-organisation Act, 1956, the Chief Justice and all the Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court have powers to make Rules and Orders with regard to practice and procedure relating to PIL and the order dated 9.9.1999 of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.988/1999 in so far as it has laid down five conditions for filing of PIL is without jurisdiction. The Full Bench in the order dated 31.7.2008 also held that there is no provision in the Court Fees Act, 1870 enabling the High Court to exempt the petitioner from payment of court-fees for filing the PIL and therefore court-fee is payable on regular writ petitions filed as PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution, but no court-fee is payable when any information in a letter or other document is registered as PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution with the direction of the Chief Justice or a Judge designate. The petitioner has filed this review petition against the opinion of the Full Bench that court-fee is payable on regular writ petitions filed as PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. The petitioner who appeared in person submitted that the High Court has inherent powers to dispense with court-fees payable on regular writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect the fundamental rights of disadvantaged persons. In support of his contention, he cited the decision of Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and another [1981 (Supp.) SCC 87], in which P.N. Bhagwati, J. has held that the Court should readily respond even to a letter addressed by individual acting pro bono publico and unhesitatingly and without the slightest qualms of conscience cast aside the technical rules of procedure in exercise of its dispensing power and treat the letter of the public minded individual as a w
