Brijesh Kumar, C.J.
1. The above
noted petition has been filed challenging the decision of the Public Interest Litigation Cell (PIL Cell) to the effect that the petition filed by the petitioner earlier does not fall within the guidelines provided for entertaining litigation in the public interest.
2. We have heard Shri B. K. Das, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri P.G. Baruah, learned Advocate General. Assam and Shri D.P. Chaliha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. It appears that a petition was filed on 16-10-98 by the petitioners, namely, Pranatosh Roy and others which was also titled as against the category 'Public Interest Litigation'. It appears that due to the said caption 'Publtc Interest Litigation' it was provided that the petition may be placed before the PIL Cell to examine the matter in the light of guidelines as laid down to ascertain whether the matter would be cognizable as PIL or not. The Cell seems to have examined the matter and came to the conclusion that it was not covered by any of the guidelines provided for the purpose. That was also approved by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice.
4. On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that the administrative order on
the petition filed by the petitioners, in public interest, could not disentitle the petitioners of hearing and the matter should have been considered by the Court. In this connection it may be noted that the guidelines to be followed for entertaining letters/petitions received in the Court as 'Public Interest Litigation' were circulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It contains 10 guidelines and on examination by the PIL Cell it was found that as per the guidelines, the petition would not be cognizable as Public Interest Litigation. Certain matters have been excluded from the purview of Public Interest Litigation as contained in the other 5 guidelines given in that regard. As a matter of fact what appears is that the guidelines as circulated are for the purpose of scrutinising letters/petitions which are received by the Courts as public interest litigation. There is no doubt that some letters/petitions sent to the High Court can well be taken cognizance of and entertained as public interest litigation. But as to keep a check on frivolous letters/petitions some guidelines have been evolved, in the light of which a Cell has been constituted, which scrutinises the letters or the petitions received as to whether they fall in the category of PIL or not. If the Cell comes to the conclusion that the subject-matter is not covered by the guidelines, it will then not be entertained as public Interest litigation. The guidelines as provided are given below :
'1. Bonded Labour matters.
2. Neglected children.
3. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers and complaints of violation of labour Laws (except in individual cases).
4. Petitions from Jails complaining of harassment, for premature release and seeking release after having completed 14 years in Jail, death in Jail (sic) released on personal bond, speedy trial as a right.
5. Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police and death in police custody.
6. Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, bride-burning, rape, murder, kidnapping etc.
7. Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of villagers by co-villagers or by police from persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and economically backward classes.
8. Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbances of ecological balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forest arid wild life and other matters of public Importance.
9. Petitions from riot-victims.
10. Family pension.'
Matters which are not to be entertained as PIL are indicated as below : '1) Landlord-Tenant matters.
2) Service matter and those pertaining to Pension and Gratuity.
3) Complaints against Central/State Government Deptts. and Local Bodies except those relating to item Nos. (1) to (10) above.
4) Admission to medical and other educational Institutions.
5) Petitions for early hearing of cases pending in High Courts and Subordinate Courts.'
The last paragraph of the guidelines also says, 'In regard to the petitions concerning maintenance of wife, children and parents, the petitioner may be asked to file petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.....'. In case where it is found that the matter is covered under the guidelines it is then placed before the Court and not otherwise. It is also provided that initially one Judge may be assigned to entertain such letters/petitions after they are found to be covered by the guidelines and the number may be increased to two or three depending upon the workload. The whole tenor of the guidelines and circular leaves no doubt that the procedure as evolved would govern the letters/petitions that is to say the petitions which are in the nature of letters. The purpose is also obvious that in case there is a spate of letters/petitions, it will only be appropriate that first a scrutiny is made by the Cell before these are placed before the Court, but the same would not be applicable where a petition is filed in the Court complying with the Rules for filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. In the present case we find that the petition which was filed is properly drafted and Court-fee of more than Rs. 700/- was also paid and the averments made in the petition are supported by an affidavit. It has
neither been received by post nor by way of letter/petition in the nature of public interest litigation, rather it was regularly filed in the Registry and was also processed as provided for such petitions. In our view, in such matters it was not required to be placed before the PIL Cell. The matter has to be placed before the appropriate Bench dealing with the petitions of the nature, namely, Public Interest Litigation and the same shall be scrutinised in the Court and it will be in the discretion of the Court to entertain the same as Public Interest Litigation or not. An affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed on behalf of the respondents and it has been averred that the petition was scrutinised and was found to be not covered by the guidelines. It is also averred that the decision of the PIL Cell was not arbitrary or unreasonable and it did not suffer from non-application of mind, but in accordance with the guidelines. In the end of paragraph 3 of the affidavit it is stated, 'However, if the Hon'ble Court finds that the petition may be entertained as PIL, the Respondents do not possess any reservation on merit.'
6. Considering all the facts and circumstances and in view of the discussions held above, we dispose of this petition providing that the writ petition filed by the petitioners on 16-10-98 (Pranatosh Roy v. State of Assam) be registered and listed for admission on 19-7-99 alongwith Misc. Case No. 693 of 1999 before the appropriate Court and the matter may be considered ignoring the decision of the PIL Cell. It is further provided that all such petitions which are filed in the Registry of the Court on payment of Court-fee and complying with the Rules of the Court will be registered and listed before the appropriate Bench for consideration and orders of the Court. However, the letters which are received or petitions in the nature of letters, shall be placed for scrutiny of the PIL Cell in accordance with the circular relating to guidelines to be followed for entertaining letters/petitions as public interest litigation.