Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Thereafter, the Excise Commissioner, in purported exercise of his powers under Section 41 of the Excise Act, purported to make the Rules, which we need not refer to, as they are reproduction of the contents of the Communication dated 27.04.2015 issued by the Chief Secretary. Having regard to the statutory / executive policy orders, which we have referred to, time is now ripe for us to notice the case of the petitioners.

8. As far as Writ Petition (PIL) No. 73 of 2015 is concerned, the petitioner therein claims to be a public interest litigant. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, what has been purported to be done by the Government is palpably illegal. He would draw our attention to the provisions of the Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the "Mandi Act"). He would point out, with reference to the definition of the word "agricultural produce"; the section under which Market Committee is created; the provisions under which the functions of the Mandi Parishad are delineated; that what the Government of Uttarakhand is purporting to do is to empower or ask the Mandi Parishad to do something, which is ultra-vires its powers and functions under the Mandi Act. In other words, in short, the case is that Mandi Parishad has been created with a particular object, which is to create bodies for facilitating the trade in agricultural produce in various market areas. According to the learned counsel, the Mandi Act does not contemplate the Mandi Parishad dealing in liquor. According to him, therefore, the public interest litigation is generated on considering the fact that the Government is compelling the Mandi Parishad to make a foray into what would be described as forbidden for it. Asking it to do something, which the Legislature has not permitted it to do, amounts to permitting it to do something which is ultra-vires and is illegal.

(v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha (supra)).

(vi) Although procedural laws apply on PIL cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depend on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. (See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of U.P. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 and Forward Construction Co. and Others Vs. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri and others (1986) 1 SCC 100).

78. While PIL initially was invoked mostly in cases connected with the relief to the people and the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was violation of human rights under Article 21, but with the passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other spheres. Prof. S. B. Sathe has summarised the extent of the jurisdiction which has now been exercised in the following words :
"PIL may, therefore, be described as satisfying one or more of the following parameters. These are not exclusive but merely descriptive :