Understanding Judiciary 8

 ‘Approach govt before courts’ Will Not Allow PIL Petitioners To Bypass Authorities, Says SC Bench

The Times of India

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Q0FQLzIwMTAvMDUvMTUjQXIwMTMwMA==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom

New Delhi: After warning that those filing frivolous PILs would be saddled with deterrent fines, the Supreme Court on Friday said even genuine PIL petitioners would have to first seek justice from the executive. 

“No one, howsoever genuine their cause may be, should approach the courts with a PIL without even sending a notice to the authorities for redressal of the grievance,” said a bench comprising CJI S H Kapadia and Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar. 

When counsel for NGO Ankush, which had sought implementation of road safety measures by the Andhra Pradesh government, said it had no personal interest and that it was acting in public interest, the CJI asked: “Where is your notice to the concerned authorities demanding justice in this issue?” 

“A proper procedure has to be followed by the courts for entertaining PILs. There is no way that a petitioner, who comes straight to the court with a PIL, will be entertained,” said the CJI, speaking for the bench. 

Addressing a long standing grievance of the executive that the judiciary has been encroaching into its turf, Justice Kapadia said: “The PIL petitioners have been moving the courts straightaway without even bringing the problem to the notice of the authorities. And the courts have been entertaining these PILs, virtually taking over the function of the authorities. We will not allow such bypassing of the authorities to take place any more.” 

The new rules would drastically cut down the rate of filing of PILs in the court. For, while those filing frivolous ones would be scared of being saddled with heavy costs, which the CJI had said on Thursday would be utilized for improving infrastructure of the subordinate judiciary, even genuine PILs would not be entertained if the petitioners have not brought their problem to the notice of the concerned authorities for justice.

“Avoid writ jurisdiction, if alternative remedy exists”

The Hindu

http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/25/stories/2010072562351300.htm

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has cautioned High Courts against exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution (writ jurisdiction) when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the litigant.

If somebody approaches the High Court without availing himself of the alternative remedy, it should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction, said a Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and Anil R. Dave.

When a matter was remitted to the original authority, it must be allowed to take a decision one way or the other in accordance with statutory provisions, rules and regulations. There could not be any restriction on passing an order in such a way dehors the statutory provisions or regulations/instructions applicable to the case in particular.

M.P. appeal allowed

In the instant case, Madhya Pradesh was aggrieved at the High Court entertaining a writ petition which questioned the decision of the Nazul officer for grant of a no-objection certificate.

The State argued that under the rules, a remedy was available by way of appeal against the Nazul officer's decision; instead, the High Court not only entertained the writ petition but also issued contempt notice to the officer for not passing orders as directed by it.

Interference not warranted

Allowing the State's appeal, the Bench said the High Court's interference was not warranted under writ jurisdiction.

It was not justified in asking the officer to be personally present and to explain his ‘misconduct.' The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing such a direction, the Bench held.