PIL 36/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BD AGARWAL Amitava Roy, J Judgment And Order The instant public interest litigation has been initiated seeking annulment of t he notification dated 11.09.2009, effecting delimitation of the District Council Areas in the State of Manipur, as well as of the notification dated 11.01.2010, publishing the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils (Election of Members) Rul es, 2009, (for short hereafter referred to as the Rules). A writ of mandamus ha s been sought for directing the respondents to extend the provisions of the VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India to the State of Manipur and to restrain t hem from holding the elections of the autonomous district councils till then. Notice of motion was issued on 24.02.2010, keeping the question of maintainabili ty of the writ petition open. Further, by order dated 29.03.2010, this Court pr uned the issues as would be evidenced thereby. By the said order, the prayer fo r restraining the conduct of the District Council Elections was declined. 02. We have heard Ms. U Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr . N Koteshwar, learned Advocate General, Manipur and Mr. R Sarma, learned Solici tor General of India, Guahati High Court, Guwahati. Also heard Mr. LS Singh, Se nior Advocate for the respondent No. 3. 03. The foundational facts of the instant proceeding are provided in the writ petition. The petitioners claim themselves to be public spirited and socially minded members of the Scheduled Tribe community of the State of Manipur , seeking to espouse the interest of the general public of the State residing in hill areas. They have referred to a series of meetings of the State Cabinet hel d between 13.05.1991 and 28.03.2001 presided over by the successive Chief Minist er of the State, in which it was, inter alia, recommended that the provisions of the VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India be extended in the hill areas of the State of Manipur with certain local adjustments and amendments. The resolut ion of the meeting of the Hill Area Committee held on 22.04.2002 proposing delet ion of the suggestion to effect local adjustment and amendments, has also been r eferred to. According to the petitioners in the said meeting, the Hill Area Committee also r esolved to request the Government of Manipur to conduct elections of the Distric t Autonomous Councils in the hill areas of the State as early as possible with s uch extension of the VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India as proposed. Th e petitioners have averred that thereafter, initiatives were taken on behalf of the Union Government to elicit response from the State Government. The petitione rs have pleaded that the then Hon’ble Deputy Prime Minister of India as well, by his letter dated 07.04.2003 addressed to the Chief Minister of the State reques ted for early steps. It was, inter alia, mentioned therein that elections to the autonomous councils of the State had not been held for over a decade. This was followed by, according to the petitioners, a memorandum of the Hill Area Committ ee of the Manipur, Legislative Assembly with the Prime Minister of the country o n 14.09.2003. While the matter rested at that, the Government of Manipur without pursuing the issue bearing on the extension of the VIth Schedule of the Constit ution of India to the hill areas of the State initiated steps for amendment of M anipur Hill Areas (District Councils) Act, 1971, which fact materialized in the enactment of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils (Third Amendment) Act, 2 008. Thereafter, the Secretary (Hills), Govt. of Manipur issued a notification on 11.09.2009, publishing the delimitation of the boundaries of 24 constituencie s of the Autonomous District Councils of the State in exercise of power under th e aforementioned Act. The said authority subsequent thereto, published the Manip ur (Hill Areas) District Councils (Election of Members) Rules 2009, by a notific ation dated 11.01.2010. 04. Whereas, the petitioners have assailed the delimitation of the D istrict Council Constituencies on the ground that it was impermissible without e xtending the provision of the VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India to the hill areas of the State and that too by disregarding the principal determinant o f electorates and not visible population. They have impeached the publication of the Rules prior to its placement before the State Assembly as mandatorily requi red. Contending that the inaction and indifference on the part of the State Gove rnment to extend the VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India to the hill area s of the State as an inexplicable failure in the discharge of its public duty, t he reliefs as above, have been insisted upon. 05. The State of Manipur has not filed any affidavit. The respondent No. 3, Department of Hills, through the Commissioner/ Secretary (Hills) Govt. o f Manipur, Imphal, has questioned the maintainability of the present proceeding on the ground of locus standi of the petitioners. It has pleaded as well, that o ne Mr. Ngachonmi Chamroy, a social worker representing the people in the hill ar eas in the State of Manipur had, earlier instituted PIL No. 3/2009 for direction s to the State respondents to hold elections to the six Autonomous District Coun cils in terms of the Act and the Rules and that the same was rigorously pursued, whereafter, it was withdrawn on 18.03.2010, as the schedule for holding the sai d elections was declared by the Governor of Manipur. The answering respondent st ated that the notification of holding elections had been accordingly issued and on the completion of the polls as scheduled, the candidates had been returned fr om the respective constituencies to the corresponding district councils. The re spondent has further urged that the issue of extension of the provision of the V Ith Schedule of the Constitution of India is in the realm of Government policy a nd that the prayer for a writ of mandamus as made is wholly misconceived. As, in any view of the matter, the decision for extension or otherwise of the provisio ns of the VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India to the hill areas of the St ate would finally be the prerogative of the Parliament, the instant proceeding i s liable to be adjudged as not maintainable. The challenge to the notifications dated 11.09.2009 and 11.01.2010, has also been dismissed as utterly untenable. 06. The petitioners by their additional-affidavit have sought to bri ng on record, in particular, the extracts of the proceedings of the Houses of th e Parliament relatable to the constitutional amendments vis-a-vis the extension of the provisions of the VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India to the State of Tripura with reference as well to the State of Manipur. 07. Ms. Das, has insistently argued that it being apparent on the fa ce of the records that the State of Manipur on principle had concurred on the ex tension of the provisions of the VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India to i ts Hill areas, its passive inaction to pursue the issue and to forward the requi red report with the essential facts and figures to the Union Government is witho ut any conceivable justification and as the same has resulted in arbitrary denia l of the legal and fundamental rights of the members of the hill tribes of the S tate, an appropriate direction ought to be issued to it to complete the process initiated in this regard. In absence of any affidavit-in-opposition by the State respondents offering any explanation for their supine apathy on the issue havin g a bearing on general public interest, a writ of mandamus ought to be issued co mpelling the State to discharge its said public duty, she urged. The learned co unsel dismissed the challenge to the maintainability of the proceedings on the g round that the petitioners adequately represent the interest of the majority mem bers of the hill tribes of the State and that their present pursuit to espouse p ublic interest ought not to be negatived on the ground of delay, as alleged. The State respondents themselves being incomprehensibly tardy in discharging their public duty, no plea of delay on the part of the petitioners is entertainable, s he argued. Ms. Das, sought to endorse her contentions by placing reliance on th e decision in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Umed Ram Sharma & Ors. (1986) 2 SCC 68. 08. The learned Advocate General per contra has denounced the presen t proceeding to be one politically motivated on the eve of the District Council Elections and bereft of any bona fide or sincerity in approach. He has questione d as well, the locus standi of the petitioners pleading absence of adequate mate rials to demonstrate their authority and status to represent the members of the Hill Tribes of the State. According to Mr. Koteshwar, not only the issue involv ed is exclusively in the realm of executive policy and in the dominion of Parlia mentary privilege, the petitioners having miserably failed to demonstrate the ex istence of any legal or fundamental rights of any section of the citizens or the hill tribes of the State and/or infringement thereof, the instant proceeding is apparently misconceived and is liable to be dismissed in limine. This is more so as the members of the hill tribes and inhabitants of the hill areas of the St ate are presently governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules, wherein t he elections to the District Councils have been held, he urged. Referring to the PIL No. 03/2009, insisting for the conduct of the election of the District Coun cils, which has since been duly completed, the learned Advocate General maintain ed that the petitioners’ plea are wholly incompatible therewith and, therefore, are rejectable without further scrutiny. He has further urged that the alleged inaction of the State Government can by no means be construed to be in violation of any legal and fundamental rights of th e petitioner and in terms of the guidelines under the High Court Rules cannot be a subject matter of public interest litigation as well. As the proposals and/or the recommendations of the State Government on the issue would always be subjec t to the overall dominion of the Parliament qua the amendment of the Constitutio n, the writ as prayed for, even other wise, may prove to be futile and, therefor e, ought not to be issued, he pleaded. According to Mr. Koteshwar, in the face o f the order dated 29.03.2010, the truncated prayer to direct the State responden ts to submit its report, is also misplaced. Without prejudice to the above, he h as urged that as alternative fora including the Parliament and the State Legisla ture are available, no judicial intervention, in the attendant facts and circums tances is warranted. To reinforce his arguments, the learned Advocate General h as placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Maharshi Avadhesh Vs. U nion of India, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 713, Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 511, Kanhaiya Lal Sethia Vs. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 573, DDA Vs. Rajendra Singh, (2009) 8 SCC 582, Director of Settlements, AP Vs. MR Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638 and State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402. 09. The leaned Assistant Solicitor General of India has submitted th at the proposals and/or recommendations from the State Government on the issue h ave not yet been received and that the same would be acted upon if forwarded to the Union Government. Mr. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 3 while adopting th e arguments of the learned Advocate General, has maintained that election having been already been held the petition has been rendered infructuous. 10. We have lent our anxious consideration to the pleadings availabl e and the arguments advanced. To decide the scope of scrutiny, it is apt to quot e the order dated 29.03.2010 as hereunder:- The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing extension o f the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to the Tribal Areas o f the State of Manipur. On being pointed that no such direction can be issued by the Court, Shri BP Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that what is essentially being prayed for in the writ petition is for a direction to the State of Manipur to complete the process/steps for submission of necessary r eport in this regard to the Central Government for necessary action. The furthe r prayer in the writ petition is for stay of the District Council Election that are due and scheduled to be held in the coming few weeks. On the basis of the modified prayer, this writ petition is admitted to regular h earing. Office to list this case for hearing on 4th May, 2010. Having regard the learned counsel on the prayer for interim stay of the District Council Elections, the Court is of the view that same ought not to be granted a nd is, therefore, declined. 11. Thereby, the petitioners modified prayer stands for a direction to the State of Manipur to complete the process/steps for submission of necessar y report relating to the extension of the VIth Schedule of the Constitution of I ndia to its territorial limits before the Central Government for necessary actio n. The prayer for interim suspension of the process with regard to the District Council Elections was declined. Admittedly, meanwhile, the said elections have been held. The petitioners, though, have introduced themselves to be public spi rited and socially minded members of the Scheduled Tribes community of the State , the instant petition does not disclose the basic facts justifying such a repre sentative, action and the reason for the inability of the other members of the s aid committee to join them in the issue. Except a statement that the instant pro ceeding has been filed by them in the interest of the public of the State who ar e residing in the hill areas, there is no other demonstrable fact or evidence ju stifying the same. In other words, there is no prima facie, evidence that the p etitioners have the locus standi to espouse a public cause on behalf of a sizabl e segment of the society whose legal and/or fundamental rights have been infring ed by the alleged inaction on the part of the State respondents in not completin g the process of submission of its report with the Central Government for extens ion of the provision of the VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India to the St ate of Manipur. This assumes significance in the face of the institution of PIL No. 03/2009 befo re this Court by one Mr. Ngachonmi Chamroy, a social worker seeking necessary di rections to the State respondents to hold elections in six Autonomous District C ouncils in terms of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is also a matter of record that this proceeding was eventually withdrawn on 18.03.2010, as the S tate Government in deference to the mounting public demand decided to hold the e lections at an early date. To reiterate, the elections, meanwhile, have been hel d. The plea of extension of the provisions of the VIth Schedule of the Constitut ion of India to the State of Manipur as a precondition for holding such election s, thus looses all significance. The Acts and Rules are in place and in terms o f the order dated 29.03.2010 of this Court, those are not open to challenge. 12. The averments made in the petition and the documents appended th ereto reveal that at some point of time in the long past, the State Cabinet was not disinclined to the idea of extension of the VIth Schedule of the Constitutio n of India to the tribal areas of the Hill Districts of Manipur and that as far back as in the year 2003. The then Deputy Prime Minister of the country had, on the basis of the representations on the issue also requested the Chief Minister of the State to pay enough attention thereto so that the recommendations of the State Government thereon be made available to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Gove rnment of India. As the matter dominantly is in the realm of executive policy c ontingent on a host of considerations of which the State Government is the best judge, it is considered inexpedient and inappropriate to issue any mandatory dir ection to it in this regard, as sought for. As it is, as in the ultimate, the r ecommendation of the State Government, even if made in favour of the application of the VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India to the tribal areas of the hi ll districts of the State of Manipur, the issue would rest in the domain of Parl iamentary rubric preceding the consequential constitutional amendment, if any. Though, the State respondents No.1 & 2, have not filed their counter, disclosing the reason for their quiescence, having regard to the nature of the issue and t he conceivable projections thereof on the constitutional governance of the State of its affairs, no direction as sought for, at this distant point of time, is c onsidered expedient. 13. The decision of the Apex Court in State of State of Himachal Pra desh & Anr. (Supra), permitting a court of law to take an affirmative action in case of Governmental inaction or lethargy, in the attendant facts and circumstan ces of the case, does not advance the case of the petitioners. As has been held in a plethora of decisions of the Apex Court and reiterated in State of Uttaran chal (Supra), a legal wrong or a legal injury to a person or to a determinative group of persons is the quintessence of the maintainability of a public interest litigation. The Apex Court therein, recalled its observations in Holicow (Supra ). It held that Public Interest Litigation should be aimed at redressal of genu ine public wrong or public injury and not public and ought not to be publicity o riented or founded on personal vendetta. In paragraph 181 of its decision in St ate of Uttaranchal (Supra), it catalogued the imperative directions to preserve the purity and sanctity of public interest litigation, which, inter alia, underl ined that such a proceeding should be closely scrutinised to ensure that it is a imed at the redressal of genuine public harm or public injury and must not be pr ompted by ulterior motives of personal gain or extraneous considerations. 14. The guidelines to be followed for entertaining a public interest litigation as framed by the Supreme Court and adopted by this Court also, inter alia, predicate complaints against Central/State Government departments and loc al bodies, except so far as it would relate to anyone or more of the ten categor ies as mentioned therein. The cavil of the petitioner is beyond the ambit there of. That a court of law should guard against any legislation by it or directio n to the legislature to enact or mandate the executive authority to exercise its power of delegated legislation to make laws or otherwise encroach into any sphe re of the other organs of the State, has been consistently declared by the Apex Court in umpteen number of times amongst others in Common Cause (A Regd. Society ) Vs. Union of India and Union of India Vs. Prakash P Hinduja, (2008) 5 SCC 511 and Maharshi Avadhesh Vs. Union of India, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 713. 15. Precisely in Kanhaiya Lal Sethia Vs. Union of India, (1997) 6 SS C 573, their Lordships held the view that the issue of inclusion or otherwise in the VIIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India is a matter of policy of the U nion and generally the Courts do not, in the exercise of their power of judicial review interfere therewith, unless the policy so formulated either violates the mandate of the Constitution or any other statutory provision or is otherwise ac tuated by mala fide. That the petitioner therein had no vested fundamental right to compel the Union of India to bring forth a particular legislation or to exer cise its discretion in a particular manner in the Parliament, was recorded in em phatic terms. 16. Apart from the fact that the materials on record do not adequate ly endorse the locus standi of the petitioners, the instant petition is also lia ble to be rejected on the ground of delay, as has been held by the Apex Court in DDA Vs. Rajendra Singh, (2009) 8 SCC 582. There is no explanation of any persu asive worth to account for the time lag from which the petition suffers. To rep eat, as the petitioners have failed to establish the existence of a legal right in them to seek the direction as prayed for, a writ of mandamus, howsoever limit ed in effect cannot issue. 17. On a totality of the considerations as hereinabove, this petitio n lacks in merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.