Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Seemajan Kalyan Samiti Raj vs The State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 4 October, 2013
Bench: Amitava Roy, P.K.Lohra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
O R D E R
Seemajan Kalyan Samiti Raj. Vs. State of Rajasthan
D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12250/2013
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Date of Order: October 04, 2013
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.AMITAVA ROY
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA
Mr.P.P.Chaudhary, Sr.Advocate, assisted by
Mr.B.L.Tiwari, for the petitioner.
BY THE COURT : (PER HON.MR.AMITAVA ROY, CJ)
Heard Mr.P.P.Chaudhary, Sr.Advocate, assisted by Mr.B.L.Tiwari, appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
The present proceedings, laid as a Public Interest Litigation, is at the instance of a registered Society, claiming to be involved in social service dedicated to the cause of inspiring the youth and imparting physical training to shape them as responsible and committed citizens of the Country. It has claimed as well that it is administering about 40 Inspiration Centres of Education, apart from conducting 4 hostels and one "Gaushala". The petitioner has put to challenge Clause 6.3 of the prospectus for admission in Government Industrial Training Institutes providing for 100% preference for admission to the 2 local minority students, as referred to therein. According to it, such a preference is violative of Articles 15(1) and 29(2) of the Constitution of India and is, thus, liable to be adjudged unconstitutional, null and void. The writ petition discloses that the source of this information about the above offending Clause is the prospectus itself and admittedly, it has approached this court seeking judicial intervention without submitting any representation before the respondents for remedial measures.
Mr.Chaudhary, learned Sr.Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, while reiterating the above with reference to the above Constitutional provisions as well as Article 340 of the Constitution of India, has urged that the reservation accorded to the minority community students of the Industrial Training Institute (for short, hereinafter referred-to as "the Institute"), is patently unconstitutional warranting interference of this court. When queried by us, the learned Senior Counsel, however, could not refer to any statement in the petition to the effect that the petitioner had made any research, amongst others, on the aspect as to whether any exercise has been undertaken by the Government under Article 340 of the Constitution of India to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes of the area in question and the difficulties under which they labour justifying the initiative assailed.
Mr.P.P.Chaudhary, learned Sr.Counsel, in endorsement of his arguments, has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bombay vs. Bombay 3 Education Society, AIR 1954 SC 561; T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481; National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and anr., (2004) 6 SCC 281; Bal Patil and anr. vs. Union of India and ors., (2005) 6 SCC 690; D.A.V.College vs. State of Punjab, 1971(2) SCC 269 and that of the Calcutta High Court in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being Writ Petition No.358/2012 "Bhartiya Janata Party and anr. vs. The State of West Bengal, decided on 2.9.2013.
We have accorded our thoughtful consideration to the pleaded facts, the documents annexed and the submissions made. Admittedly, the instant petition seeks to initiate a Public Interest Litigation. Chapter XXIIA of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 (for short, hereinafter referred-to as "the Rules") exhaustively deal with the topic of Public Interest Litigation, prescribing amongst others the contents of the petition to that effect as essential components thereof. Rule 385A provides as herein:
"385-H. Declaration necessary.- (1) A petition filed in public interest shall contain a declaration of the petitioner/petitioners that a thorough research has been conducted in the matter raised through the public interest litigation; and all the relevant material in respect of such research shall be annexed with the petition.
(2) A petition filed in public interest shall further contain a declaration of the petitioner/petitioners that to the best of his/their knowledge and research, the issue raised was not dealt with or decided and that a similar or identical petition was not filed 4 earlier by any person; and in case, such an issue was dealt with or a similar or identical petition was filed earlier, its status or the result."
It would appear from the aforequoted Rule 385(H) that any petition filed in public interest shall contain a declaration whether research has been conducted in the matter raised through the Public interest Litigation and all material particulars in respect of such research has to be annexed with the petition. The burden is on the petitioner to furnish all relevant facts so as to generate prima facie satisfaction of the Court that not only the requirements of the relevant Rules stand complied, but also a cause of action endorsed by law exists for scrutiny in a public interest litigation.
A thorough research of the petitioner/petitioners in the matter raised through the Public Interest Litigation is, therefore, an inalienable and imperative requirement to maintain a petition presented to espouse a public cause. To reiterate, a perusal of the averments made in the petition does not disclose that any research whatsoever has been made by the petitioner before seeking to initiate the instant proceedings in the form of a Public Interest Litigation. In this view of the matter, while the precepts of Articles 15(1) and 29(2) of the Constitution of India are unassailable, having regard to Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India, it cannot, in the perspective of the pleaded facts, be irrefutably concluded that Clause 6(3) of the prospectus is liable to be adjudged as unconstitutional, null and void. Though a 5 reference has been made in the course of arguments to Article 340 of the Constitution of India, there is no statement whatsoever in the petition that no such exercise had been undertaken by the concerned authorities.
In this view of the matter, we construe that the instant application has been very casually laid before this court and in view of its inchoate state and form, does not deserve to be entertained. The authorities cited at the Bar, dominantly on the scope and ambit of Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India, in the aforestated factual premise, do not advance the case of the petitioner and, therefore, no dilation thereon is called-for.
The petition on the above considerations, is rejected.
(P.K.LOHRA), J. (AMITAVA ROY), C.J. RANKAWAT JK, PS