Karnataka High Court
Harisha A S vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2013
Equivalent citations: 2013 (4) AKR 458
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013
PRESENT
THE HON' BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
R
AND
THE HON' BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WP Nos.15052-15053/2013 (GM-MMS-PIL)
BETWEEN :
HARISHA A S
ADVOCATE,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O SINGREGOWDA,
NO.35, 2ND MAIN,
VIDYANAGAR,
T.DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE 560 057.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADV.,
FOR M/S SAMPAT & VALSALA LAW ASSTS., ADVS.,)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
-2-
3. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN/MEMBER SECRETARY,
"PARISARA BHAVAN",
NO.49, CHURCH STREET,
BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri R.G. KOLLE, AGA FOR R1 & R2.
SRI D. NAGARAJ, ADV., FOR R3.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ENACTMENT BROUGH
ABOUT BY THE RESPONDENT STATE NAMELY THE KARNATAKA
REGULATION OF STONE CURSHER ACT 2011 DATED
13.02.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND RULES FRAMED
THEREUNDER NAMELY THE KARNATAKA REGULATION OF
STONE CURSHER RULES, 2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-B DATED
22.06.2012 ARE IN UTTER CONTRAVENTION OF THE
DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ORDER OF THIS COURT
DATED 10.07.1998 IN WP 17078/1997 VIDE ANNEXURE-C,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ONLY
FAILED TO FORMULATE A POLICY REGARDING REGULATION
OF CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS OF STONE CRUSING
ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE, BUT ALSO FAILED TO COMPLY
WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THIS COURT VIDE
CONDITION NO.12 OF THE SAID ORDER IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO THE DIRECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS TO
SUBMIT THE PROPOSALS OF "SAFER ZONES" BEFORE THE
REGISTRY OF THIS COURT IN TERMS OF THE CONDITIONS
5(A) TO (G) CONTEMPLATED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE
SAID ORDER DATED 10.07.1998 AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINRY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
ORDER
D.H.WAGHELA, C.J. (Oral) :
1. The petitioner herein is admittedly a practising advocate and the petitions are argued by learned counsel Mr. Sampath Anand Shetty. It is stated at the outset, that the petitioner noticed that the directions contained in the order of Division Bench of this Court in WP No.17078/1997 popularly known as Obayya Poojary's case, which were issued in public interest have not been implemented in letter and spirit till this date, though 15 years have elapsed. It is contended that the respondents having been very casual in their attitude in bringing in the enactment namely, the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short 'the Act') which is not only per se in contravention of the essence of the directions contained in the order dated 10.07.1998 in W.P.No.17078/1997 of this court, but would also amount to an illusory method adopted by the State, which is infact circumventing the orders of this Court, as well as the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is stated to have been constrained to approach this court with an intention to espouse the public cause.-4-
2. The entire elaborate petitions have the same refrain and after deprecating the enactment and provisions of the Act, the petitioner has also made elaborate prayers, inter alia seeking a writ in the nature of declaration that the Act brought about by the respondent-State and the Rules framed thereunder are in utter contravention of the directions contained in the aforesaid order dated 10.07.1998 of this court in WP No.17078/1997. It may be pertinent to note here that while admitting that the petitioner and his representative are practising in this court, it is also admitted that they do not have any record of public service or taking up of any public cause. As advocates practising in this court and being officers of this court, they could be presumed to know that, after the enactment of impugned Act and Rules, hundreds of cases arising from the operation thereof are adjudicated in this Court and hundreds of parties on either side of such litigation are likely to be affected by any decision on the issues sought to be raised in the petitions.
3. Initially it was argued, repeatedly and at length by learned counsel Mr. Sampath Anand Shetty, that the impugned enactments are in violation of the directions issued -5- by this court in the aforesaid order dated 10.07.1998 in WP No.17078/1997. When it was pointed out that none of the aforesaid directions ordered enactment of any law or rules, and hence the impugned Act and Rules cannot be assailed as either in violation of the directions or in execution of the directions, learned counsel shifted the stand and submitted in writing, that the State Government had no power to make the impugned enactment, in view of the provisions of Article 246 of the Constitution read with Entry No.23 of State List-II. It was submitted in writing that no entry in the State List of the Constitution enabled the State to bring about or exercise the legislative power on the topic of regulation of stone crusher units, much less to enact the legislation, providing for licenses and their renewals by the State. It is further submitted that the State has only power to make rules in respect of minor minerals under the provisions of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; and the provisions of Section 15 only permitted making of rules by the State Government for regulating the grant of quarrying lease, mining lease or other mineral concessions.-6-
4. Thus, in short, serious legal and constitutional issues were sought to be raised by the petitioner, admittedly without having any stake in the matter or anything to gain or lose by any decision. It is also common knowledge, atleast among officers and advocates of this court, that hundreds of cases arising from the operation of the Act are pursued by the parties, who are capable of taking care of their own interest and raise all the legal issues without requiring any assistance or representation by any public spirited person. It is not even alleged in the petitions or on behalf of the petitioner that parties affected by the operation of the Act are incapable of approaching this court or in any way suffering any handicap in accessing the appropriate forum. Under the circumstances, it prima facie appears that the concerned advocate has been attempting to fish in troubled waters, so as to affect large number of other litigants, without any stake of his own and without even being serious in his submissions. It may be noted here that the way the oral arguments were addressed and repeated before this court also displayed singular lack of interest, depth, study or preparation.-7-
5. Therefore, it was squarely put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitions should not be dismissed at the threshold for want of locus standi of the petitioner.
However, it was argued in reply that the petitioner felt aggrieved by the impugned enactment, on account of its constitutional validity in defiance of the order of this court and the petitioner took it as the duty as officer of this court to file and pursue the petitions.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the directions have been totally violated by the State Government by making an enactment instead of formulating a policy. Therefore the Stone Crushers Act and its Rules are bad in law. Before considering this contention it is necessary to consider the locus standi of the petitioner to file these Writ Petitions and also other relevant considerations for entertaining PILs of this nature.
7. The decision of the Division Bench in Obayya Pujary's case dated 10/07/1998 was the subject matter of Civil Appeal Nos.7041-43/2001 and the said civil appeals were dismissed on 08/04/2009. Thereafter, the Karnataka Regulation of Stone -8- Crushers Ordinance was promulgated and subsequently, Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher's Act, 2011, in effect carrying out the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Obayya Pujary's case to formulate a policy regulating carrying on of the business relating to crushing of stones appears to have taken the form of the said Act.
8. Although the scope of "locus standi" has been considerably widened particularly in the field of public interest litigation, a mere busybody who has no interest in the matter cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, as held in Rajnit Prasad vs. Union of India and others {(2000) 9 SCC
313).
Similarly, in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra and others {(2005)1 SCC 590), the Supreme Court has observed:
"12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens.-9-
The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well (as) to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
9. As held by the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others (2010 AIR SCW 1029):
"161. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great
- 10 -
care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged.
"162. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effecting steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts.
..............
"166. The Supreme Court broadly tried to curtail the frivolous public interest litigation petitions by two methods - one monetary and second, non-monetary. The first category of cases is that where the court on filing frivolous public interest litigation petitions, dismissed the petitions with exemplary costs. In Neetu v. State of Punjab & others (AIR 2007 SC 758), the Court concluded that it is necessary to impose exemplary costs to ensure that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.
.......
"175. In Thaware's case (supra), the Court encourages the imposition of a non-monetary penalty
- 11 -
against a PIL petition filed by a member of the bar. The Court directed the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation. This direction impels the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to disbar members found guilty of filing frivolous and vexations PIL petitions.
......
"190. A degree of precision and purity in presentation is a sine quo non for a petition filed by a member of the Bar under the label of public interest litigation. It is expected from a member of the Bar to at least carry out the basic research whether the point raised by him is res integra or not. The lawyer who files such a petition cannot plead ignorance.
"191. We would like to make it clear that we are not saying that the petitioner cannot ask the court to review its own judgment because of flaws and lacunae, but that should have been a bona fide presentation with listing of all relevant cases in a chronological order and that a brief description of what judicial opinion has been and cogent and clear request why there should be re- consideration of the existing law. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not done this exercise. The petition which has been filed in the High Court is a clear abuse of the process of law and we have no doubt that the
- 12 -
petition has been filed for extraneous considerations. The petition also has the potentiality of demeaning a very important constitutional office. Such petition deserves to be discarded and discouraged so that no one in future would attempt to file a similar petition.
"192. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the appeals filed by the State and quash the proceedings of the Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.689 (M/B) of 2001 filed in Uttaranchal High Court. We further direct that the respondents (who were the petitioners before the High Court) to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in the name of Registrar General of the High Court of Uttarakhand. The costs to be paid by the respondents within two months. If the costs is not deposited within two months, the same would be recovered as the arrears of the Land Revenue."
10. It is recently held by the Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2013) 4 SCC 465 :
"23. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in exceptional circumstances as referred to
- 13 -
above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo motu, in such respect."
11. Having regard to the above observations related to locus standi of the petitioner in public interest litigation, the petitions are not only not required to be entertained, but are required to be dismissed with appropriate amount of cost. In view of the fact that rather than serving any public interest or cause, such litigations tend to take away considerable time of the courts, where number of genuine litigants have to wait for adjudication of their grievance for years on end. The court has to regretfully note the fact that such spurious public interest litigations are on the rise and it is indeed unfortunate that some officers of the court, who are members of the Bar and learned advocates conscious of the ethical values of the noble profession, have joined the race.
- 14 -
12. With these observations, the petitions are summarily dismissed, without entering into merits, if any, of the contentions briefly summarized herein-above, with cost quantified at Rs.25,000/-, which the petitioner shall pay within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority at Bangalore.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE mv & mvs