IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W. P. No. 3347 of 2010. Decided on 23rd July, 2010. Arun Kumar. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh through Collector, Sirmaur, District Sirmaur, H.P. …… Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner. : Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The Writ Petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by an Advocate, who is practicing at Sarahan, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P., seeking the following reliefs:- “i) By way of writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent to make out repair of the complex/or built new building and construct two-three rooms for the Advocates and litigants including rain shelter nearby the complex forthwith so that the complex may be worth living and sitting to the learned Judges, Advocates and general public. 2 ii) The respondent may kindly be directed to depute some responsible Officer (Local Commissioner) to inspect the spot immediately as the rainy season is ensuing very soon and take appropriate immediate steps. iii) Any such other or further orders which the Hon’ble Court may deems just and proper in the light of facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed.” 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that the camp Court is continuously being held at Sarahan from 1983-1984 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-Cum-J.M.I.C., Rajgarh in every week or month. However, according to the averments contained in the petition, the building where the camp Court is being held, is in dilapidated condition and lacks basic infrastructure and other facilities. 3. The respondent has filed reply. As per the reply, the Tehsildar, Pachhad at Sarahan has submitted the report to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur, District Nahar on 2nd July, 2010, stating therein that Khasra Nos. 640,641,642,643/1, Kita 4, measuring 631.68 sq. meters stood transferred alongwith possession in the name of H.P. Judicial Department vide mutation dated 17.07.2007 and the camp Court measures 66.88 Sq. meters of land. As per the report furnished by the Tehsildar, Pachhad, District Srimaur, the building is in good condition from outside. But at the time of inspection, the building was found locked since the building opens only during the camp Court, therefore, it was not possible for him to report about the internal condition of the building. 3 4. It will be appropriate at this stage to reproduce the preliminary submissions made by the respondent in the reply, which reads thus:- “That as per the report received from the Tehsildar, Pachhad at Sarahan land bearing Khasra No. 640,641,642,643/1, Kita 4 measuring 631.68 Sq. meters stand transferred along with possession in the name of H.P. Judicial Department vide mutation dated 17.07.2007. The building in which camp court is being held measures 66.88 Sq. meters. The walls and roof of said building is in proper condition. Report of the Tehsildar Pachhad is annexed as Annexure R-1 and its English translation as Anneuxure R-2. The State Govt. can provide finances to the H.P. Judicial Department for the repair/improvement in existing structure or for the construction of new building only on the proposal of State Judicial department. So far there is no such proposal in the knowledge of replying respondent. However, state undertakes to act promptly on such proposal as and when received through concerned department of H.P. Government i.e. H.P. State Judicial department.” 5. It has also been reiterated in Para-3 of the reply that the State Government will welcome any proposal recommended through their department for carrying out necessary repair work, as alleged/demanded. 6. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent order in Interlocutory Application No. 279 of 2010 in Writ Petition ( C) No. 1022 of 1989, titled as All India Judges Asson. & Ors. versus Union of India & Ors., have referred to the report of Justice Shetty Commission, whereby it has been highlighted that courts in Mofussil places are located in dilapidated buildings with inadequate furniture for Judges or lawyers or litigants. It is further 4 referred that old rickety furniture is at site to see even today in Mofussil courts. Their lordships have held as under:- “2. In the Report of Justice Shetty Commission, it has been highlighted that courts in Mofussil places are located in dilapidated buildings with inadequate furniture for Judges or lawyers or litigants. The old rickety furniture is at site to see even today in Mofussil courts. Such courts, according to the Report of Justice Shetty Commission, have become pathetic site to see. The most important observation in the Report is that the Union Government has included the infrastructure of the courts as “planned item” to enable them to provide half of the expenditure required for that purpose and the other hald has to be contributed by the State. 3. At this stage, it may be stated that the Central Sponsored Scheme of the Central Government has a rule of sliding down which results in reduction of the funding from the Centre as the said funding is made dependant upon the State’s funding in a given year. One more aspect which needs to be mentioned is that, usubject to various modifications recorded in the judgement dated 21st March, 2002, all other recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission were accepted by this Court in this case (Para 37 of All-India Judges Association Vs. Union of India, reported in 2002 (4) S.C.C. 247). Earlier, in the judgment in this case reported in 1993 (4) S.C.C. 288, paragraph 43 reads as under: “We now understand that the judiciary has been included as a plan subject by the Planning commission. If this is so, the construction of adequate number of houses with the necessary facilities should be given the top priority being the most primary requirement of the Judges at any place…..In order to ensure that the quarters constructed for the judicial officers are of proper dimension and with adequate number of rooms, their future construction should be made in consultation with and under the supervision of the respective High Court and the High Court should take adequate interest in their construction.” 5 4. Till today, paragraph 43, afore-quoted, has remained a dream. It now needs to be enforced and, therefore, this Court has decided to sit on every Monday in the afternoon session to re-visit the infrastructural problems faced by the Subordinate Courts. It is brought to our notice that fines and costs running into crores deposited in State Government Accounts are not spent for the infrastructure of the Courts. We want these amounts to be earmarked for infrastructure of the subordinate judiciary in each State. Even the Court fees collected is not deployed for the infrastructure of the judiciary. We want the Central Government and the State Governments to cooperate. We want these funds, which are internally generated, to be deployed for the infrastructure of the subordinate judiciary so that there is less dependency on the Central Sponsored Schemes. We also want the Government to consider amending the Court Fees Act in specific areas like Negotiable Instruments Act, Arbitration Act, etc. 5. Accordingly, we hereby direct the Report dated 12th July, 2010, to be registered by the Registry as an Interlocutory Application. The respondents in the Interlocutory Application will be the State Governments through their respective Chief Secretaries, Union Territories through their Administrators, High Courts through their Registrar Generals, Union of India through Department of Justice, and, lastly, the Advocate General of each State. In addition, we want the Advocate General of each State to be co-opted in the State Committee, which is referred to in the Report. The Report indicates not only the requirement of the subordinate judiciary but also indicates the revenue raising measures as also the state of affairs in various States by way of illustrations as far as infrastructural problems are concerned. 6. Issue notice. 7. The three Committees referred to in the Interlocutory Application shall stand constituted within four weeks. They shall supply the inputs in Formats (Annexures I 6 to L annexed to the Report) to the Monitoring Committee which in term will place it before this Court on the next occasion. 8. We make it clear that copy of this interlocutory application willl be brought to the notice of the Chief Justice of each of the High Court in the Country by their respective Registrar Generals of the Courts. 9. We also make it clear that if any application is made by the Standing counsel representing a particular High Court or State Government or Union Territory, the Registry will give them a copy of this Interlocutory Application without any charges. In addition, the said Report should be placed on the Supreme Court of India Web-site. T 7. Accordingly, in view of the averments contained in the reply, the District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan is directed to prepare the building plans and thereafter send a proposal to the State Government in consultation with the High Court for construction of new building within a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, the State Government in consultation with the High Court shall consider the case for providing necessary funds for the purpose of construction of Court building at Sarahan, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. The District Collector, Sirmaur is also directed to ensure that till the new building is constructed, the necessary steps for repair of existing building are undertaken and the building is restored to its original position, befitting the status of Court within a period of three months from today. 7 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti, on usual terms. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 23rd July, 2010 (bhupender)