1:A ft-^^ :"°t ^s^.;.^':'.": Ba ^ MIGHCC^JRT£!FCHHATTIS6ARHATBILA9>UR WritPetJtjonNo. 1706/2006 CORAM: Mon'bleairiS:R;Nayalt.Chief3'ystiee& Hon'ble Shri Oilip Raosaheb ISeshmukk, J. - Petitioner ReSBondents Rupau, son oftcrtB Raruha 5irtnami, dged about 75 iyears, resjdent of Village Bhumiya; Poiice Stution Simga, &iSfric:t Raipur.' •',: .: . • • .": .' : . :'IX:l:^:' Versus (1) Union of India, through 1+ie Secretary. AAinistryof Home/Labour,htew Dellii. • (2) Shate of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, AAinistry of Home/Labour, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipup. (3) h^onc^ Caprtol Tervrt^ of t>eli'ii, throu^ ^e^^ S^ AAinistry of :|^me/|^ou^ilStewsDe)hi«'' ' •'' ::.-::,;^ .-{4)',^^;t-a!»ouFi^Ccij'nmis3iOnei',.'^S'tate':1'.' of' :/;; ^•C ot i;^rH,?f^ipHr^Y'^',1'^ (5) TKe Sttttion 1-louse ©fficer, Poliee Station Simgo[, Distr'icffaiipur^ Shr'iB.P.Sharma.Counselforthepetitioner, S Shri Bh ish mci Kinger, Centrol 6ovt. Stouiding Counsel for respondent No± ' ' :.' : :•: ; 1.' ; . . ; • . :- ...1: 9iri ViriayHarit,DY;Advoccrte6eneralforthe5tate, ORALORDER ffaS%don4A2006) The •following oral order 6f the Court vuas passed by S.ft.NAyAK;CJ. Notwithslxmcling the totat diseppr'ovat pecorctecl by us in our recentjudgment<:l<rted 13.12.2005 inAAcniShankarPcnTc^^^v T.wiw. <& Others1 with regard to obuse anel mi^% of public i^^ jitigarfions (pll^) by busy-bodies, misguided per^ns <^ exeraplary costs of Rs.lO^CU^ in thcrt case. ano+her c^^ say so, still worse than the pne decideel by us in ,the aforeraentioned ease, is fil^ in the garb oft^^ to learhetjl counsel for the^petitioner.tKisPlLisfiled.no^onlwy^ :l:2006?(i)'C:.e.t..,t:.'l.^.. -.,'; : • :./'1':-: —i2~- f-^-~ remedy the jtersonal grievdn<% of the petitioner butelsy^e puhlie«»u^,':'::.•• ;'. .. ;: . •-,''.. ',:.::1'''':" .• . 1 ' ', ; :::::^ .; . 2. All+iough 1+ie wrrt- petition rur^ to t^d 10 pages, the^^^ • veFysimplecnystraightfor^rd^ond^erfcpulctconvemerrl-lybe^ in q small pdragrcqsh and they are; the ddughter-in-law bf the petitioner, Signi Bai by name, «tentto Dethi Owittt whBm and wheh^she went td Delhi is not forthcbming). 9ie went with her miriQr female ^ chjlcl. 9ie cljed in Delhj in the morith of Februwy 2006. An unnamed pepSortbroughfl^eminorclaughterQfSagniBaioinyhdndedoyerher to the petitioner and totd the petitioner^ t^ account of accident" which had taken place at a construction site at Delhi. ' ;: : . : :'••, :".. . ' :. :' ; • .. • 3. In the errtire petitj<m, the (tetailssuch as t^ qf Sagni Bai,w|iatkindflfworkshe<^Sd^ died, tbe ploffie of the acciifent cnd pther retevdnt informationsdre not forthcpming. Thisisthe kindof pledding with regard to Sagni Bai gping^ to Delhi and dying there. Hdving storted that, -the rest of the petition in volumes and quite often repetitions abundance speaks of exploitation of workers by building con'troctors in New Delhi dnd jMrticulwly those poor yiltage^ of the Chh<^ over thereforearnmgtheirlivelihocid. 4. We have r^d (md re-read the ^jf petition. The soui^^^^o^^ basis of the generolizec) ajtegatioris made agqinst the entire body of the building contracters jnl^vv l^lhfcis not (rt dll^s^^ In other words, tHe pleading <rf the petitionep is as vague te these generdlized yagi^ allegatjqnscannotbe;yen technique or m^asure. The petitjorier hi^ n<rf chosen t^ ridme$ of thdse cQntractQrs who violate Uabour Laws and other Laws jncludtngIntersiteteAAjgremtWbrkmen(!tegut^ cuidConditjons^Act, 1979, iHaving^r'u^ 1+ieye^^v^^ 'tha;p^pt'ionep,^.1tieWr%shiolcl|ifself.:1^:^^ :caSe.'wh^r^y,1f^A^^rt::,sh<^3r:'s^ -3 ^ Constitution end we, accopdingiY, fcld Shri ^ counsel for 1te petitioner and indicated lliat M®^^V^ entertain th&writpetition, but, Shri BP. Sharmd.leamed courisel for the petitjoner, went pn arguing and repeating •tiie same submissions several times. We repeatedly tbld 9in B.P.Sharma that the preeious time oftheGourt.shoulclnotbeatlowed to beused in the woyhe yad; neyertheless, tearnsd counsel for the petitionsr proceeded to repeat and reitepate the same cpn'tentions several times consuming corisiclerable time of the Gourt. We strongty disapprove this. Time has come where the Constitutional Courts/particularly, this Court where roughty 75.QOO sf coses are pendihg for decision-making with on!y eight-Judge strerigth, shoulcl spend the Court-time, thereby meaning public time, judiciousty and reGSondbly, and if any person whether he jslitigcmt cff^hJscQun&^gfa^ at the^perilibf^othe(^ who wctit^or:justi<^'at^e<ioo^ for years should be made accountable. This concernis stated by us, ih our- recent judgment in the case of ani Shdnkar Pandey (supra?). We think it appropria+e to extract relevant observations made by us in that case in support of our order in this case. They read; "13. ^Before concluding a word or two about the gcceunlubilityofthapetitionerinffloving^^W pietition under Article 226 oftHe &nstitution uncler^e^^^^ of PIL. The time oftheCourtis public tim^ tim&ef^ejtiygesnOrthetimeof^t^ l^e pi^lic ^tme ^ouid^be spenf judicrously ond ec^ insistence of suchTule isab^lutely necessary pw^ • fhe context ofo^fflin^ penctenc^ of^^ i^er ^diciffl and <}udsj^dicial fdr a to^ The ^.ourt's tfme should hot be dllovwd^ be misused or dbused byur^ titigdnts or busy-bQdies iri ifce garb of^ M reaponsibilit^ east onftlhe tearhed^^^^^^^ Bciir in espousingthecausff'ofthepuhlrcbywcryofPILs.L^^ a ^ry crocial ahrf imporlim^ role in public^^^^m Wis chty Snd responability tb the Court in a Pulalic interesf Litigatigri case is eyen grecrter jn comparison to usual ;cases. TheLawyer^reperlx)ireand1^^ •are-,-centt^.^":a,,puRpos^ui:,.,use..^^.^di<^ instrui^nts of institul'ibnat ^re^iws. ;iAn Advocate fa wt gs ::infegr (3ar'¥"<^^minjstrcrfion'o^jus11ce.,TO orrd-jBclwkwy'are'the^twa^des'^f-lhe:^^ -L\< would not be wrong in expec^ng^^t^ ^l^ct him%lf in ^sponsible^ m^ Rnper^^ in discboT^ of?^ obtigc^ioris; They do^t.ptead i^ clients but thejr dutyWlCourt is much h^ -rtlat of servin9 llleir clients. i+ is^s^^ ama^ cw^, a friend 6f the Court;^h CourTahdnotfohJsctient.Tfte&urf^timeisn^mec^ tiie satisfactioh of the^^e^ Court-rtial' he Knows -Hie wAiote law correctly oind there-cannot l:>easecond(^inion<w1^epoin*<ddress^ soitisfy^the counsel himself vAo (^pears for o could ^fapth^^ plea or pojnt irrespective of^i^ 'terioibili'fY m fte legi^ premjse; nor to^plea^^a^j^ coynsel thcrt his wurisel did: argyft 1^e cc^ marveloyslycmd^hiss^sfactiori.Adjydicat^ m Uw Court are seribys pursuits, and th^^^^s^ respohsible 'ohd construe^ive co-opeh^ion ^rom^^^ ^ parTners of th®in^i^fron,;^d;bo1+t of'lftem sha^^ ;and do^eY®t'j^^ila'ty"t^rs^o^Hi|OTy of;:;t| ^Lffitewi^i i'tRsScRi|ii®ing||ustt^g^ becOfl»in^rative^c^sit^Wtlw^ris^iW ttie accumulation of ^he Cpses in alorming os^^^^ lon9 pending.' Fruil-ful mouiagement of the Courfs time is need of the hour and coinnot be achieved without constructive co- opergtiQn beti^en th& Bcu' and the Bench; 14, Time hascome forttle Constitutional Courts notonty to nip Itie unscrupulous and unjustified RU^ c^ to mc^e the movers of sy<^ PIt^a^ l^ms. AAere di^proval erf sudi FILs by^W observatioris in 1iie juclgrrient will not help the pubtic^^j^ ttie ton9 run. The S^tespe^S^uge sums^o ^Kmited'Fe^ui'Ges^to^provicle,:^ of,'^uidjia%!r")||^ROcesses.,^:JIf.:1^ C^ju3icatory'^^|o]||M|j|i®a|Bii^^or;;misused:'^^v^ personunder the^ffl^B|^%lj%1|'rabyt accouhl^bleifor His|^gative;luxury, in or-dey^W pUblic:Jnter^^'':Pu6^:in1%t^st.^wMI:~^ne^r suffer inaPublicInfere^Litigation^^^T^ imposing exemDlary costSs, ^^e: cannot^aye ISe plea^ unju^ifie3;i:^at^e ^st^^l^ towards Court fee, a prt-^^ m^meurit'edb'/'theStals.^ :.''..:1' '.:. ^ ,•.:''•'. .:1''''':.^ :15.:::.f:,The:^ppe^.'Coupr;in.,j£^te-'^ .(S^r^^expr«ssedi'ifs:lto^lN%Ieasuj^^!^^ •the'fiouirt^tjme;on,;oK:<:otm||Q|j|tpj^||'^^|ie8in^|i|^^ :ync^;'tfcel'garblo^fytLls?irij^|Fo|^|oWin^li|^ ;^-^; .i^i ^:'^iSfii ^ y^Q^'^^^^^i^^^^^M^^a/^'g'f-f^'s^'[pueu^ffj'^'^:4...i(i09.' <;3Uu^yc®^ai^^iuepDA.lsSe|o^aL|^fS'ai|^y"s^^ oqD.).nqs^^srw!4^3ApuD.p^ io ^ ^Mnoa ipng ^^ ^ sfini.siw 8141. uo^^jddsi^^di-o^s^ .si^ satsi^ s^ojd si|4. ui piro 4.-inty ^4^ ^0^^^5^ 9<Jft. ^o suoisioap fiuipuiq ai^. Xq pu&(5 04; s6s| ou 'sot| aSpnf" ®a^O^q SssiMUD^ a^ ipji^ 4.U!0(Ta^^^4^ ^uiod MSJA sit| i)+m ^isuad- C4. Esujsap^^^^o ^•uiatsXs |oj3ipnr^no ^p i^i4W+siuiwp!aatj+ ili t^tiy ^o| Ast|+ X|.|^^|ns3^ j.o spuiui si^ uj^UQi^By+sn^B sa)^^? u ipiipft SSAOUI .iaAau 4,^no3 SLJ). 40 sJOop 31(4. spis+no SujjsuB^ shsnb sl^ tpjtjM J.o +|nss4^^^a ^o su«+^qnnjiiA ai^ a^sim A(|ouiiUM3 sni^ pup supj+i+ad sno)oAj.y. pun snoij.rooA 6ui|y Aq; sj-^rio^ sijy.- ai.ui .(^pUD'usj^Bjfll^^a^Jsitqnd^o^^^ sasnj.^aiai^ 6ui|^j.hu4 an^b aqt ip^^^o^^^^ do^ jfi i^i4JW!4.oiu snoauD4P<a .isi^ ^^^ uo s^stit.o ^ Xxo^3 si? jo ssAiw^s^ ^0^ ^34+!s +!JAUd a^ jo uin6 |taio?jad yo^ ^dao^s •I^^^U! ^qpd^ SuiAoq syausAj^ui shoiay^ J.o s^jty.Aiw '^^o|js4,U!^^^^ ^ suios3|ppsw 'ssipoq Asnq 31)4. 'psssadpM ss3UBA3i.i6 ji3t)4. BuiAoi^ puo ^no^ s^.p^ si^ I^IM sups^ yp^:sn3ntoauy.usili%^g^ :yB',3jo^:-'-^^.'a4.3!^ap.^;|aGU.|jjg^pi^^ :fl3i^;.6utt^adxs|:sBua^p4il^||3S^^ .^^i4.^|03:?p^dc^rp^^ao|ariu^3^|^grri^^ .':- ^nqu!Sd3i)m5%c3><B^4o|iKo^jpai^^6^ 34»Aud JQ +y^uu3A09 •s^44Dw^^^ ul ^|3P 3^ sij^. ut^o^ Suu^ns suosJSd^s^BaAfiuo^^ftuo!^^ ur4.d?>| puo^suuosuduij 3^1] p^^^^ ^p6p p|OL|.un^ uapun SMo[|o6 Suioii^^ i^ sups^ad ^siyM ui ssro ^ ^o spsdpun^ 4^^ S3!+d3do^d 6uiA|^uj' y o^6ui4io|a^533UDA3iu63^^i4.iGa|i|4.iM^ 3|it4M 4»4t"oiuido dnos^d>^j.nq;plpAO^^^^ ^p.restjun puOipai.ussa.icla.iuf]' •psai.^ouun 06 s33uDAsiy& asoqm j^.pa^ioiA puop?6ui^ui s^s+i|&^ ^I|M Ap^u st|4. puo ps^a^c^ 'jood84tatA^duiXs^ouiJo6uo|jnoto j^ +d^uoo pa^Aui A|A<au3t^ 6wcb|a^ ut guou <4 ^pu(»% a^ ^ i^no^^^^ ^^-^ si|+ ^oss^ ^o |t%oclsip 3L|4. uo^usdsiisaq^^a^ ^iMJai^osiyi^ l^oji^ Ra+si^syn^^^^s^ ^yno^ 3t|^ ajo^sg psjMjjw'sBu j^hs ^o +uno33D uo 4^^'^s' .-.:::.-^,.^'^ ..'-: :, ?"...; I^mustcdso^ toi 1+ie waiver of the A^^ should perroit rt bnly^ »^ capnage of proceeding^ in the CTmpeteht hdnds of a ^ person v^o isgehuir^y concerned in public interestoiridl is not raovecl by pther eKtraneous considerations. So dtso the Court nwst be »^ PFOC%^ of 1{ie ^ourt is not sough 1^ be a^ perMri ^p desires To persist uwlh hfe almost cari^ing it to tha point of 'obsth^^ series^of petitions refysing toaccept-H-ieCour't'secu'lier elecisions as conciyding the point. V^ soy •riiis because when;we drew theattention ofthe petitiol^ decisions of thisCourt, he brushed them ciside/without so much c^ sHowing wllingness to d^ withput giving 1ftem a s^ond^^^^l state and irrelevcint by pasaige of time ancl challenged Their coFreclTiess 6n TheSjieciouspleathattheynsedeid reconsictei'atibri ^e^Kad no^answer to ttie correc'tness of the,,:^eeisiM^^|SuBHgawca^t|^gi'c^^ .•.decisiims^s1<a;is|£surj||e^|l|i|S||jer'so^ l^woultf nO^Be'G&un-^nlii^eci,^^ :out eartier he referred todecisions-h^ingiTObeoiringonthe qyestion like the decjsions on cow slaughter cases, fi^cyni of speech a^ ^etc. v» iwe^ say no more^ tfidt indiscriminorte use of •rtiis important lever of public inl'erestlitigort'ion wbuld biuntthe lever rtseif/" 5. Hgving apptied our mind and in the premise of well-sstablished normscOTdprinciplesgovemingpubliCinterestlitigorfion.weareoft^ consideredopimon^crt'thisfenotacc^^ichcouldbe^ public interest litigation. Inthat viewof the mu^ wrjt petitjon wilh exemplary costs qucOTtifi^ c^ ^ -^ Cffia^fsy^ W^ Court tsQ^^^^S^ period of three weeks frgm today. The Registry shalt infopm the Court^etherthedirectioniscompli^wiWbylhepetition^ oywy of'three.weeks. v:: ',' ' : : • '•: '. ::'..;;''"'" '' 6.Beforepdrtingwitiithisce&,v^makeitverycleQrthcrf^^^ Sa^i Baj, the dmghl^-in-lawo^ltep^ ^im^e^wa&OT^en^lj^meETE^lMicleiKt^ ieN'h^l^^^r^pll^nt^i^l^l't^'i^e^oSe^Nwm^ ^S^^B^SSSS^Sa, ^S^K'^=^:r-^JV"^. •, ^^i^^ SS 7^ -; ^;-_^^3^~;'^!i^^:': '."'S''s£'.-..~~.t.'.''•- •.-' '••••rai~y 3§pnf q5[nuiqsaa qaqesoB^ dina /-PS 33psnf jaiq3 -/PS •iog luSBg '+tug a+D| p3SD33sp3ijj.j.os3At.ijaj.u%3jda^iD6S( 3tj4. o+ psA^^ si A+^sqij +DI^ -MD| t|4.JMS3upp^03^uiS3!pstuad|D6a| 9Z ;.:: ,..'.:. ^-.,.:' •::. .^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^