Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anindya Sundar Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 December, 2017
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, Arijit Banerjee
In the High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
P R E S E N T :-
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
And
The Hon'ble Justice Arijit Banerjee
WP 26756 (W) of 2017
Anindya Sundar Das
-Vs.-
Union of India & Ors.
With
WP 26784 (W) of 2017
Sri Deborshi Chakraborty
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WP 26815 (W) of 2017
Subhankar Chakraborty
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WP 26855 (W) of 2017
Mrs. Basabi Raichoudhury
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WP 26892 (W) of 2017
Dr. Biman Bihari Das & Anr.
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WP 27011 (W) of 2017
Shri Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury & Anr.
-Vs.-
The Union of India & Ors.
With
WP 27212 (W) of 2017
Nur Md. Sardar
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WP 27217 (W) of 2017
Bhaskar Bhattacharya
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WP 27274 (W) of 2017
Biswajit Das
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya,
Sr. Adv.
(In WP 26756 (W) of 2017) Mr. Rabi Shankar Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Soumen Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Adv.
Mr. David Francis, Adv.
Ms. Sumita Sarkar, Adv.
Ms. Anubhuti Ganguly, Adv.
For the petitioner : Mr. Subhasis Chakraborty, Adv.
(In WP 26784 (W) of 2017) Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. Sushmita Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. P. Baidya, Adv.
For the petitioner : Mr. Partha Ghosh, Adv.
(In WP 26815 (W) of 2017) Mr. Sumeet Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Saptarshi Dutta, Adv.
Ms. Shreemoyee Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Narendra Prasad Gutpa, Adv.
Mr. Hemraj Adhikari, Adv.
For the petitioner : Mr. Subrata Mukhopadhyay, Sr.
Adv.
(In WP 26855 (W) of 2017) Mrs. Daisy Basu, Adv.
Mr. Soumen Biswas, Adv.
Mr. Malabika Bhowmick, Adv.
For the petitioner : Mr. Loknath Chatterjee, Adv.
(In WP 26892 (W) of 2017) Mr. Arobinda Sen, Adv.
Mr. Sukanta Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Amritlal Dhar, Adv.
For the petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kr. Sanyal, Adv.
(In WP 27011 (W) of 2017) Mr. Ashish Kr. Roy, Adv.
Mr. Pratip Kr. Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh, Adv.
For the petitioner : Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharyya,
Adv.
(In WP 27212 (W) of 2017) Mr. Anupam Kumar Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Mr. Sujit Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Dipanjan Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Mr. Dipankar Mullick, Adv.
Mr. Amarnath Agarwal, Adv.
For the petitioner : Mr. Arijit Bakshi, Adv.
(In WP 27217 (W) of 2017)
For the petitioner : Mr. Kausik Samanta, Adv.
(In WP 27274 (W) of 2017) Mr. Abhijit Pal, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. A.G.
Mr. Abhrotosh Majumdar, Ld. A.A.G.
Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Adv.
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Avra Majumdar, Adv.
Mr. Debasish Ghosh. Adv.
For the KMC : Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
(In WP 26855 (W) of 2017 Mr. Alok Ghosh, Adv.
& in WP 26892 (W) of 2017) Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv.
For the Union of India : Mr. Kaushik Chanda, Ld.A.S.G.
Mr. Debasis Basu, Adv.
Mr. Ujjal Ray, Adv.
For the respondent No. 29 : Ms. Shampa Sarkar, Adv.
(Siliguri Municipal Corporation) Heard On : 03.11.17, 14.11.17, 16.11.17 & 17.11.17 CAV On : 24.11.2017 Judgment On : 01.12.2017 Arijit Banerjee, J:-
(1) These writ petitions have been filed as Public Interest Litigations (in short 'PILs'). The prayers of the writ petitioners are for a direction on the respondent authorities to take appropriate measures to check the spread of Dengue in the State of West Bengal and for providing adequate medical facilities for the treatment of those afflicted with the disease. After we heard learned Counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners, we had directed the State Government to file a report in the form of an affidavit disclosing the number of Dengue affected patients who succumbed to the disease as also the steps that were taken by the Government for combating the disease. Such a report dated 9 November 2017 was filed in this Court. Thereafter, we heard other learned Counsel appearing in support of the other writ petitions. After all the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners concluded their respective submissions, learned Adv. General appearing for the State took a preliminary point of maintainability of these writ petitions as PIL. Learned Adv. General argued at length as to why according to him, these PILs are not maintainable and should be rejected in limine. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners on the point of maintainability of these writ petitions. (2) We need not have decided the point of maintainability as a preliminary point since the same was not taken before the writ petitioners made their submissions on merits. The point of maintainability was raised on behalf of the State only after the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners concluded their submissions on merits.
However, since we have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length on the point of maintainability, we deem it proper to express our opinion on that issue before passing any further order on these matters.
(3) Learned Adv. General challenged the maintainability of these writ petitions primarily on two grounds. Firstly, he submitted that the writ petitions have been filed on the basis of newspaper reports regarding the spread of Dengue. Newspaper reports are not admissible evidence. A PIL based on newspaper reports is not maintainable. Secondly, he submitted that it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that before a party approaches the High Court by filing a PIL, he must do adequate research and must disclose sufficient materials before the Court in support of his grievance made in the writ petition. He submitted that the instant writ petitions are not supported by any evidence. The writ petitioners have not taken the trouble of doing any research work. Merely on the basis of newspaper reports the writ petitions have been filed. The writ petitioners are only looking for publicity. No public interest is involved in the present writ petitions.
(4) In support of his submission, learned Adv. General relied on the following decisions:-
(i) Ravinder Kumar Sharma, (1999) 7 SCC 435 para 26.
(ii) Union of India-vs.-Major S. P. Sharma, (2014) 6 SCC 351, paras 18 & 89
(iii) Kushum Lata-vs.-Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180.
(iv) Holicow Pictures (Private) Limited.-vs.-Prem Chandra Mishra, (2007) 14 SCC 281.
(v) Dr. B. Singh-vs.-Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 363, para 3.
(vi) S. P. Anand-vs.-H. D. Deve Gowda, AIR 1997 SC 272 para 18. (5) Mr. Rabi Shankar Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in WP 26756 (W) of 2017 (Anindya Sundar Das-vs.-Union of India) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of People's Union For Democratic Rights-vs.-Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235, in support of his submission that even a letter written by a member of a society drawing attention of the Court to an issue of public concern can be treated as a PIL. In this connection learned Counsel also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudipt Mazumdar-vs.-State of Madhya Pradesh, (1983) 2 SCC 258. (6) Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for KMC in WP 26892 (W) of 2017 and WP 26855 (W) of 2017 submitted that the petitioners are trying to make a political issue out of some of the inhabitants of the State being infected with Dengue. He submitted that the said writ petitions are motivated and have been filed with oblique motive. Learned Sr. Adv. relied on the following three decisions:-
(i) Bharat Singh-vs.-State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181, para 13.
(ii) State of Uttranchal-vs.-Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402, para 181.
(iii) Holicow Pictures (Private) Limited-vs.-Prem Chandra Mishra, (2007) 14 SCC 281, para 10.
With reference to WP 26855 (W) of 2017, Mr. Banerjee submitted that the petitioner took no steps for the last five years to ascertain whether the order passed by this Court on 21 January, 2013 in the earlier writ petition being WP No. 3147 (W) of 2013 was complied with by the authorities. Suddenly, the petitioner has woken up, obviously with an ulterior motive. This is a stunt litigation, a publicity litigation, submitted Mr. Banerjee.
(7) Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP 26756 (W) of 2017 submitted that the report filed in the form of an affidavit and the action report filed subsequently on behalf of the State are completely vague and devoid of material particulars. Public health is at stake. Hence, PIL is maintainable. Learned Sr. Counsel relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manohar Joshi-vs.-State of Maharashtra, (2012) 3 SCC 619, as also on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Brajesh Jha-vs.-Union of India, (2017) SCC Online (Cal) 899. (8) Mr. Subrata Mukhopadhyay, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner in WP 26855 (W) of 2017 submitted that an earlier writ petition being WP 3147 (W) of 2013 filed by the same petitioner on the same issue was entertained and disposed of by an order dated 21 January, 2013 by issuing certain directions on the State respondents. Hence, in so far as the said writ petition is concerned, the question of non-maintainability of the same does not arise.
(9) Mr. Ashish Kr. Sanyal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP 27011(W) of 2017 relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury-vs.-State of West Bengal, (2004) 2 CHN 40. In that case, a PIL had been filed drawing the attention of the Court to deaths of several children for an unknown cause mainly in the Lalgola and the Jangipur Block of Murshidabad District. The Division Bench entertained the writ petition and issued certain directions on the State Government. Mr. Sanyal submitted that when public health at large is at stake, a PIL is definitely maintainable.
(10) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and we have considered the authorities relied upon by respective Counsel for the parties on the point of maintainability of these writ petitions. (11) In so far as WP 26784 (W) of 2017 is concerned, the same is not based merely on newspaper reports. It is based on a State Government report submitted to the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme (in short 'NVBDCP'). Further, it appears from the said writ petition that the petitioner has made some independent research and the materials disclosed in the writ petition are sufficient to call for an enquiry. In our opinion, the arguments on the point of maintainability advanced on behalf of the State would not apply to this writ petition.
(12) In so far as WP 26855 (W) of 2017 is concerned, we are of the opinion that the same also stands on a different footing since the same petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing WP 3147 (W) of 2013 on the same issue of Dengue. The said earlier writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 21 January, 2013. Apart from other things, the petitioner in this writ petition in effect seeks enforcement of the earlier order.
(13) In so far as the other writ petitions are concerned, let us consider the arguments advanced on behalf of the State to come to a conclusion whether such writ petitions are maintainable or should be rejected at the threshold as unmaintainable.
(14) As regards the point of newspaper reports not being admissible evidence, we are conscious that the presumption of genuineness of newspaper reports under Sec. 81 of the Evidence Act does not extend to treating the statements made in a newspaper report as proof of correctness thereof. Hence, newspaper reports per se are inadmissible in evidence, unless the concerned reporter is examined and cross- examined in Court. We accept and indeed we are bound by the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Sharma (supra) and in Union of India-vs.-Major S. P. Sharma (supra) cited by learned Adv. General.
(15) In Kushum Lata (supra), the Apex Court observed that before entertaining a PIL, the Court has to be satisfied about the credentials of the applicant, the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him and the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show the gravity and seriousness involved. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public spirited men. It was also observed that petitions based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity should not normally be entertained. To the same effect are the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Holicow Pictures (Private) Limited (supra) and in the case of Dr. B. Singh (supra). In S. P. Anand-vs.-H. D. Deve Gowda (supra), the Apex Court observed that a person filing a PIL seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein he is not well- versed. No one has a right to the waiver of the locus standi rule and the Court should permit it only when it is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings is in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations. It was further observed that a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on half-baked information without proper research.
(16) We have carefully considered all the decisions relied upon by learned Adv. General. There can be no dispute with the propositions of law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions that firstly, newspaper reports are not evidence; secondly, without some material in support of the grievance ventilated in a writ petition filed as a PIL, the writ petition should not be entertained; and, if it is found that in the garb of filing a PIL, a person is trying to espouse some private cause or has filed the PIL for extraneous considerations and not for the benefit of the public at large, the petition should be nipped in the bud with costs.
(17) However, in the present case, we do not find that the petitioners have approached this Court to protect any private interest or for any other extraneous consideration. It is true that the writ petitions except the two writ petitions referred to above which according to us stand on a different footing, do not disclose as much material as was desirable in support of the prayers made. However, from the report in the form of an affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is admitted that Dengue has become a serious social problem. Admittedly, even on the basis of the action report filed on behalf of the State, 38 persons have lost their lives to the disease. Once such undisputed information has come before us, we cannot remain silent spectators. Protection of public health is definitely in public interest. We are not suggesting, at least, at this point, that the State has not taken appropriate measures to ensure that the incidence of Dengue is checked to the best extent possible. But the fact remains that deaths have occurred and continue to occur to patients afflicted with Dengue. Whether or not the administration has taken adequate steps shall be considered by the Court at the appropriate stage. However, it is not possible for us to hold that these writ petitions are not maintainable as PILs. (18) A PIL is not an adversarial litigation. It is not a lis between two private parties or between an individual and the State or a public authority. The rules of pleadings and the rules relating to onus of proof strictly do not apply to a PIL. The concept of PIL was evolved so that a social evil affecting an appreciable section of the society but not addressed by the State or its instrumentalities, can be brought to the notice of the Court so that appropriate directions can be passed by the Court for combating such an evil. A PIL is inquisitorial in nature. If a real social problem is brought to the attention of the Court and if it does not appear to the Court that the petition filed is based on completely frivolous or imaginary allegations or with oblique motive or for extraneous considerations, the Court would be failing in its duty not to order an enquiry into the matter.
(19) We are unable to read the authorities cited on behalf of the State to mean that a PIL filed to draw the attention of the Court to a social issue affecting the public at large, is to be supported by a scholarly research paper. The task of a public spirited citizen is to draw the attention of the Court to the particular issue. If the Court finds such issue to be of sufficient gravity and seriousness, the Court would be justified to call for materials from the parties as also from the public at large to decide whether intervention of the Court is required and if so, in what manner. However, we repeat that the Court must eliminate writ petitions at the very threshold which have been filed to advance private interest or for other oblique motive by meddlesome interlopers masquerading as pro bono publico. (20) In the present case, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient material before us to entertain the present writ petitions which have been filed as PILs. We, thus, reject the contention of the State that the writ petitions are not maintainable. We propose to grant an opportunity to the respondents to file a detailed affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petitions disclosing in details the measures adopted for checking the spread of Dengue and the facilities made available for treating patients suffering from Dengue.
(21) We were somewhat surprised with the stand of the State in questioning the maintainability of the writ petitions. We feel that instead of being so defensive as it has been, the State should have invited suggestions from everybody concerned including the writ petitioners as to how to fight the evil of Dengue which has already claimed at least 38 precious lives in the State of West Bengal as per the State's records, and many more lives as per the claims of the petitioners. We have a social problem in hand and all concerned should work in tandem to tackle such problem.
(22) The respondents in the writ petitions will be at liberty to file affidavit-in-opposition within one week after Christmas vacation. Reply, if any, be filed by the writ petitioners within one week thereafter. List the writ petitions for final hearing four weeks after the Christmas vacation.
(23) Since we have held the writ petitions to be maintainable as PILs, and since we are of the opinion that certain immediate measures should be adopted by the administration to tackle the menace of Dengue, we pass the following interim directions:-
(i) The State Government shall provide mobile medical facilities for blood testing and urgent treatment in areas in close proximity of which no hospital or medical centre is available.
(ii) The State Government shall ensure that adequate medical kits for testing of blood of patients suspected with having contracted Dengue are available in all Government Hospitals in the State.
(iii) The State shall disclose in its affidavit as to the extent and in what manner it has complied with the directions given by this Court in the order dated 21 January, 2013 in WP 3147 (W) of 2013.
(iv) In exercise of its power under Sec. 4(1) of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 the State Government has issued a notification dated 3 September, 2012 to the effect that a report shall be submitted by every clinical establishment to the licensing authority as soon as a person who has been received or accommodated or both in that clinical establishment is found to be suffering from Dengue (including Dengue Shock Syndrome/Dengue Haemorrhagic Fever). However, we are apprised by learned Counsel for the parties that the said notification has not yet been gazetted. Evidently, the said notification has been issued in public interest so that the State can keep a track of number of Dengue affected patients. We are of the opinion that the said notification should be published in the Official Gazette immediately. Accordingly, we direct the State Government to gazette the said notification immediately and in any event within a fortnight from date.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.) Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, ACJ.-
(24) I have read the judgment delivered by my brother Justice Arijit Banerjee and I fully agree with the conclusion drawn by my brother and want to support the conclusion drawn by brother by my own reason.
(25) As many as nine (9) PIL applications have been filed by different writ petitioners concerning a common cause i.e. spread of Dengue menace in the State of West Bengal and how to combat with such situation. It is alleged by the applicants in all the aforesaid PIL applications that several persons of different ages lost their valuable lives due to Dengue fever and the facilities for identification of such disease in the Government hospitals as well as the private nursing homes and other clinical establishments in and around the cities are inadequate and as a result such disease cannot be detected promptly causing various health hazards and even death. It is also alleged that the State respondents failed to provide adequate treatment to the patients suffering from Vector Borne Diseases particularly Dengue and the failure of the State Government to act according to National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme caused spread of such disease which has taken the shape of epidemic in several districts of West Bengal.
(26) At the time when these public interest litigations were moved, learned Advocate General appearing for the State did not initially challenge the maintainability of these writ petitions, however, after the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners concluded their submissions, learned Advocate General appearing for the State raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of seven (7) PIL applications out of nine (9) as the foundation of those PIL applications were based on newspaper reporting without making any effort to support the same by minimum research work on the subject. (27) Drawing our attention to the pleadings made out by the writ petitioners in all these PIL applications excepting the PIL applications being W.P. No. 26784(W) of 2017 (Sri Deborshi Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Anr) and W.P. No. 26855(W) of 2017 (Mrs. Basabi Raichoudhury vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), learned Advocate General submitted that the writ petitioners, apart from disclosing the newspaper reports did not disclose minimum evidence and/or prima facie evidence to support the allegations made by the writ petitioners in those public interest litigations.
(28) According to the learned Advocate General newspaper reporting is nothing but hearsay evidence and such evidence is inadmissible in law as per Section 81 of the Evidence Act. He, thus, contended that since the writ petitioners failed to disclose even the prima facie evidence in support of their allegations made in those public interest litigations, those public interest litigations should be nipped in the bud. In support of such submission he relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
i) Ranvinder Kumar Sharma, (1999) 7 SCC 435 para 26
ii) Union of India and Ors. Vs. Major S.P. Sharma and Ors: (2014)
6 SCC 351, paras 18 & 89
iii) Kushum Lata Vs. Union of India and Ors.: (2006) 6 SCC 180;
iv) Holicow Pictures (Private) Limited Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors.: (2007) 14 SCC 281;
v) Dr. B. Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.: (2004) 3 SCC 363, para 3;
vi) S.P. Anand Vs. H.D. Deve Gowda and Ors.: AIR (1997) SC 272, para 18.
Relying upon those decisions learned Advocate General prayed for dismissal of those public interest litigations. (29) Learned Counsel appearing in support of the public interest litigations refuted such submission of the learned Advocate General by submitting that public interest litigations cannot be treated at par with the adversarial types of litigations where litigants fight for their individual interests. It is submitted that strict rules of pleadings and evidence are not followed in public interest litigation. It is argued that in public interest litigation, the petitioners are required to bring to the notice of the Court certain incidents which concern the public at large and if the said requirement is fulfilled, the Court is required not only to entertain such public interest litigation but also to cause a full- fledged enquiry so that affectation of the rights of the public at large is redressed.
(30) Without raising any issue as to the proposition of law that the newspaper reporting per se is not admissible as per Section 81 of the Evidence Act, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of one of such public interest litigations, submitted by drawing our attention to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited decisions with regard to the admissibility of the newspaper reporting under Section 81 of the Evidence Act, that all such observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in private interest litigations where the parties fought for their personal cause which were essentially different from a public interest litigation. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that though most of the decisions which were cited by the learned Advocate General were initially filed as public interest litigations but the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that those litigations were really filed in the nature of private interest litigations which were distinguishable from public interest litigation. (31) According to Mr. Bhattacharya, these findings of the Hon'ble Supreme court are essentially declaration of law in the context of adversarial type of litigations where strict principles of pleading and evidence are followed to mete out justice to the rival claimants in a private interest litigation. It is, thus, argued by Mr. Bhattacharys that since all these public interest litigations disclose matters of serious public concern, these public interest litigations cannot be dismissed outright on the ground of maintainability as argued by the learned Advocate General.
(32) The learned Counsel appearing for the other PIL applications practically adopted such submission of Mr. Bhattachara. (33) Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation supported the submission of the learned Advocate General in his own way by referring to the following decisions:-
(i) Bharat Sigh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181, para 13;
(ii) State of Uttranchal Vs. Balwat Singh Chaufal: (2010) 3 SCC 402, para 181;
(iii) Holicow Pictures (Private) Limited Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra:
(2007) 14 SCC 281, para 10;
(34) I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties in the background of the materials available before us.
(35) In connection with these public interest litigations, a report supported by affidavit has been submitted by the State respondent. In addition thereto, a report has also been submitted by the State respondent mentioning therein in details the activities and/or actions taken by the State respondent for prevention of Vector Borne Diseases such as Dengue etc. The outbreak of Dengue in different parts of the State has not been denied; rather the State respondent admitted in its report that since January, 2017 till the date of submission of such report i.e. 9th November 2017, 18,135 Dengue cases were reported in the State Government Hospitals and according to the State respondents, those cases were effectively managed and the patients were cured after proper treatment. It was also reported in the said affidavit that 19 patients died despite best possible care and treatment being given to those patients at the Government Hospitals free of cost.
(36) The activities and/or the actions which were taken by the State respondent for prevention and management of Dengue disclosed in the other report submitted by the State respondent clearly demonstrate that in 2017 as on 15th November, 2017, 38persons died on account of Dengue fever in different State hospitals. It was also mentioned therein that 15 other deaths have also been reported from other private nursing homes. It was also mentioned therein that 26 persons who have been reported to have died on account of Dengue fever by different private nursing homes and/or clinical establishments are still under verification.
(37) Thus, we find that on the one hand the petitioners are claiming that 184 persons died due to Dengue fever in the State and on the other hand the State respondents are claiming that the number of deaths are much less than the number as mentioned by the writ petitioners in those public interest litigations. Outbreak of such Vector Borne Disease like Dengue in the State is not denied by the State respondent.
(38) The year wise statement which is disclosed in the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme published by the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare shows that in West Bengal 805 persons were reported to have suffered from Dengue and one of them died in the year 2010; in the year 2011, 510 persons were affected by Dengue but there was no loss of life in that year; in 2012, 6456 persons were affected by Dengue and out of them 11 lost their lives; in 2013, 5920 persons were affected and out of them 6 persons died; in 2014, 3934 persons were affected and 4 persons died;
in 2015, 8516 people were affected by Dengue and out of them 14 lost their lives; in 2016, 2865 were affected and out of them 45 persons lost their lives and in 2017 as on 4th October, 2017, 10697 persons were affected by Dengue fever and out of them 19 lost their lives. Even the number of persons who lost their lives due to Dengue fever which are disclosed in the said report do not tally with the number of the persons died as disclosed by the State respondent in its report in the form of affidavit wherein they claimed that only 19 persons lost their lives due to Dengue attack in 2017.
(39) Thus, apart from the allegations and/or assertions of facts, made out by the writ petitioners in their respective public interest litigations, further materials are now available before us which clearly indicate outbreak of Vector Borne Disease namely Dengue in West Bengal and the death of several persons due to such disease. (40) Court is not concerned about the number of deaths as even loss of one life due to failure on the part of the State to prevent such disease is really the concern of the Court. Though it is stated by the State respondent in its affidavit as well as in the documents produced by the State before us that the State Government has taken all necessary steps in implementation of the guidelines issued by the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme but still then we find that such disease has not yet been eradicated from the State. As such a question now arises as to whether the steps which were taken by the State respondent for prevention of recurrence of such diseases are adequate or not. In our view, since the materials which are now available before this Court clearly demonstrate that such Dengue disease has not been eradicated from the State of West Bengal despite such steps being allegedly taken by the State respondent and the said problem is recurring every year causing not only various health hazards but also causing death of some persons, this Court cannot dismiss the public interest litigations on the ground of the preliminary objection regarding maintainability thereof as argued by the learned Advocate General of the State.
(41) Rather this Court feels it necessary to find out a better way of management of the present problem to combat recurrence of such disease in the State.
(42) That apart, the rules which are framed by the High Court for initiation of public interest litigation provides for Suo Motu initiation of public interest litigation, if the Court is of the view that the materials which are available before the Court are sufficient to come to a prima facie finding that they involve affectation of rights of the public at large and Court's intervention is necessary to redress the public grievances. Initiation of public interest litigation upon receipt of certain information concerning public interest disclosed by letter only was also held to be justified by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights and others Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1982(3) SCC 235.
(43) Instances of initiation of public interest litigation based on newspaper reporting is not rare in this country. As a ready reference, we may refer to a public interest litigation viz. the famous Nandigram Case which was initiated by this Court on the basis of newspaper reporting. Thus, we cannot agree with the submission of the learned Advocate General that these public interest litigations cannot be entertained by this Court for non-disclosure of prima facie evidence in support of the pleadings made out by the petitioners in their respective public interest litigations.
(44) Before parting, I would also like to mention that the other two public interest litigations W.P. No. 26784(W) of 2017 (Sri Deborshi Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Anr) and W.P. No. 26855(W) of 2017 (Mrs. Basabi Raichoudhury vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) which were filed by the respective petitioners therein concerning identical cause of action which are involved in the other seven(7) public interest litigations, were not founded on the basis of the newspaper reporting. In W.P. No. 26855(W) of 2017, it is averred that the said writ petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 3147 (W) of 2013 concerning the identical problem in the State of West Bengal and while disposing of the said public interest litigation some directions were given by another Division Bench of this Court upon the State respondents for prevention of repeatation of such disease in West Bengal. The present writ petition was filed seeking direction on the State respondent to disclose as to whether those directions were carried out by the State respondent and if carried out, the result thereof.
(45) In the other public interest litigation W.P. No. 26784 (W0 of 2017 the petitioner therein claimed himself to be a research scholar. He did not rest the foundation of the writ petition on the basis of the newspaper reporting; rather the writ petitioner relied upon the notification of Dengue cases published by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare State of West Bengal on 9th June, 2016 and the note on Dengue published by the experts from NVBDCP Website, report of Dengue cases and death in the country since 2010 published by National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, Directorate General of Health Services and the resolution adopted in the joint convention of Doctors West Bengal on Dengue situation.
(46) Thus, we find that at least those two public interest litigations cannot be nipped in the bud for non-disclosure of prima facie evidence in support of their pleadings.
(47) Thus, taking note of the facts and figures as a whole I agree with the conclusion drawn by my brother Justice Banerjee that these public interest litigations cannot be dismissed in limine on the ground as argued by learned Advocate General. I, thus, not only agree with the conclusion drawn by my brother Justice Banerjee but also fully endorse His Lordship's views regarding the necessity for passing interim directions in these public interest litigations as mentioned in his Lordship's judgement.
(48) Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, ACJ.)