--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE D.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA AND HON'BLE MR. I.S. SHRIVASTAVA, JJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8716 / 2011 SATYAPAL ANAND Vs. STATE OF MP & OTHERS * * * * * O R D E R ( 04/11/2011) The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition as Public Interest Litigation. His contention is that he is a well known PIL Litigant in the State of Madhya Pradesh and has earlier also filed large number of PILs for seeking education (as stated by the petitioner). He has filed this petition for securing Schools where no schools are available and to provide free education to children upto 14 years of age. The contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of constitutional provisions as contained under Article 45, 46, 334 and 335 of the Constitution of India, the State is under an obligation to provide free education and therefore an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to the --- 2 --- respondents to provide free education to children upto 14 years of age and to explain why education has not been provided since 26/1/2060 (date as mentioned in the writ petition). The matter was argued at length. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed the facts and figures before this Court in order to substantiate the averments made in the petition. Not only this, The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which is an Act to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years has been enacted by the parliament in the 60th year of the Republic of India and the same has come into force w.e.f. 1/4/10. The Act is certainly a complete Code in itself and the provisions of the Act of 2009 are being followed by the Central Government as well as by the State Government. The apex court in the case of State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 in paragraphs 8 to 13 has held as under : 8. It is a settled proposition of --- 3 --- law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. 9. In Bharat Singh &amp; Ors. v. State of Haryana &amp; Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181, this Court has observed as under:- In our opinion, when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter- affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded. In a writ petition or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Larsen &amp; Toubro Ltd. &amp; Ors. v. State of Gujarat &amp; Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608; M/s Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1684; and Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar &amp; Anr. v. Union of India ; Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2221. 10. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties --- 4 --- may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. 11. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. (Vide: Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bishun Narain Inter-College &amp; Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1242; and Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi, AIR 2011 SC 1127). 12. It cannot be said that the rules of procedural law do not apply in PIL. The caution is always added that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence in such proceedings when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the Court. (Vide: Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 2187). 13. Strict rules of pleading may not apply in PIL, however, there must be sufficient material in the petition on the basis of which Court may proceed. The PIL litigant has to lay a factual foundation for his averments on the basis of which such a person claims the reliefs. Information furnished by him should not be vague and indefinite. Proper pleadings are necessary to meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice. Even in PIL, the litigant cannot approach the Court to have a --- 5 --- fishing or roving enquiry. He cannot claim to have a chance to establish his claim. However, the technicalities of the rules of pleading cannot be made applicable vigorously. Pleadings prepared by a layman must be construed generously as he lacks standard of accuracy and precision particularly when a legal wrong is caused to a determinate class. (Vide: A. Hamsaveni & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (1994) 6 SCC 51; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2004 SC 280; Prabir Kumar Das v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 452; and A. Abdul Farook v. Municipal Council, Perambalur , (2009) 15 SCC 351). Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the petitioner has not pleaded and produced sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the writ petition, this court is of the considered opinion that the pleadings are not complete, hence no case for admission is made out in the matter. Resultantly, admission is declined. (S. C. SHARMA) (I. S. SHRIVASTAVA) J U D G E J U D G E KR