The Jharkhand High Court imposed a cost of  Rs. 25,000/- on the Petitioner and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to make enquiry/investigation regarding the alleged high level corruption in the admission in M.B.B.S. courses conducted by the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board .

The Petitioner alleged that  due to the connivance of the Private Secretary to the then Health Minister and Secretary  by contravening provision of Section 57 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Resolution Dated 03.04.2018 , of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, which provides that only those certificates regarding disability of persons issued by the authorities notified by the State of Jharkhand are eligible and valid for taking admissions in M.B.B.S. course and other courses.

While considering the PIL ,  the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra  and Justice Ananda Sen said that first of all, the petitioner appears to be a busy body filing several Public Interest Litigations without any valid or reliable credentials in his favour. Thus, relying upon the Rules 4 and 5 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 and the ratio decided by the  Supreme in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541, the Court is of the view that the Public Interest Litigation should not be entertained.

On the merit also, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the private respondents have taken admission in Medical Colleges under the Central Quota. It is not disputed that they have produced physical disability certificates issued from the authorities outside the State of Jharkhand.   

Section 56 appearing in Chapter X of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides that the Central Government shall notify guidelines for the purposes of assessing the extent of specified disability in a person. This Clause seeks to empower the Central Government to notify guidelines for assessment of specified disabilities. 

Section 57 provides designation of certifying authorities. Subsection (1) of Section 57 provides that the appropriate Government shall designate persons, having requisite qualifications and experience, as certifying authorities, who shall be competent to issue the certificate of disability. Sub-section (2) provides that the appropriate Government shall also notify the jurisdiction within which the terms and conditions subject to which the certifying authority shall perform its certification functions. In Notes of Clauses, it is clarified that this clause seeks the appropriate Government to designate certifying authorities for the purposes of issuance of certificate of disability.   

On joint reading of both the Sections leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the Central Act, i.e., Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, does not make any distinction between certificates issued by authorities in one State or the other. The relevant aspect that has to be considered by the High Court is whether the guidelines for assessment have been followed or not and whether the designated authority has been duly authorized by the appropriate Government. In this case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the guidelines for assessment of specified disabilities have not been followed. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the appropriate Government has not designated the authorities who have issued the certificates. Moreover, Section 58 provides for procedures for certification.

Sub-section (3) of Section 58 further provides that the certificate of disability issued   under this section shall be valid across the country. The Act further provides that this Clause seeks to provide for the procedure for issuance of certificate of disability to any person with specified disability.

Interpreting the Clause 10 of the Resolution of the State Government issued on 03.04.2018 by the State Government, the  counsel Rajeev Kumar, for the petitioner submitted that only those persons who have obtained disability certificate from designated authority in the State of Jharkhand can avail the benefit of reservation and those persons who have obtained certificate of disability from any authorized persons outside the State shall not be allowed to participate in the selection process by availing reservation for physically disabled persons.   

The Bench is  not in agreement with the submissions made by the  counsel for the petitioner, as, a plain reading of aforesaid Clause 10 does not provide that actually only the authorities designated for the State of Jharkhand can provide a valid certificate to be considered for the purpose of obtaining admission by admitting through the reservation provided for physically challenged persons.

In this case, the private respondents have participated in the selection process and have taken admission in the years 2011 to 2013 and the Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the year 2020, i.e., almost after 7 to 9 years of their taking admission. 

“It appears to us that the petitioner has an oblique and ulterior motive in filing this writ petition. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to impose a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) on the petitioner for filing frivolous Public Interest Litigation without having any credibility or credential in his favour. The cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) should be deposited in the coffers of the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority within a period of 30 days, failing which the same shall be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914”, the order reads.

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed challenging the order issued by the Respondents barring the Petitioner from participating in future tenders for a period of two years.

By filing the PIL , the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: –

a) For the issuance of an appropriate writ declaring that the order, contained in the letter dated 09.11.2021 (signed by the Respondent on 06.11.2021) issued by the Respondents debarring the Petitioner from participating in future tenders for a period of two years, is illegal, arbitrary and void ab initio since the same has been passed without any specific show cause notice or adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for debarment of the Petitioner.

b) For the issuance of an appropriate writ or writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order, contained in the letter dated 09.11.2021 (signed by the Respondent on 06.11.2021) issued by the Respondents debarring the Petitioner from participating in future tenders for a period of two years from the date of issue of the said Order, in as much as the said drastic adverse order has been passed illegally against the Petitioner inter alia without giving any specific prior show cause notice to the Petitioner and also without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before passing the said order and also in as much as the said order is in violation of the well settled law which was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (1989) 1 SCC 229.

c) For the issuance of an appropriate writ or writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order, contained in the letter dated 10.11.2021 issued by the respondents illegally terminating the contract dated 26.07.2021 entered with the petitioner, in as much as the same was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, without considering the replies of the Petitioner and without giving any reasons.

d) For the issuance of an appropriate writ or writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order, contained in the letter dated 03.11.2021 issued by the respondents illegally terminating the contract dated 26.07.2021 entered with the petitioner, in as much as the same was passed mechanically, arbitrarily, in violation of the principles of natural justice and without considering the replies of the Petitioner.

e) For the issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to participate in all tenders issued by the Respondents and also allow the Petitioner to continue business with the Respondents without any unlawful restrictions;

f) For the issuance of an interim relief that during the pendency of the instant petition the operation, implementation and effect of the order contained in the letter dated 09.11.2021 issued by the Respondent No.3 (The Chief Engineer & HOP, Durgapur Steel Thermal Power Station) debarring the Petitioner from participating in future tenders may remain stayed.

It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner challenges both the termination of contract as well as the blacklisting. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner was issued notices on two occasions (18.08.2021 and 28.08.2021) that he has failed to submit the bank guarantee and he has also not filed the labour license.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that such non-submission of bank guarantee as per the work order reference no. 1 and labour license would not make it ineligible to carry out the contract, rather the payment shall not be made to him.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ananda Sen was not in agreement with the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner in the sense that the bank guarantee for performance contract is an essential condition of the bid document and violation of that will entail cancellation of the work order in favour of the petitioner. As far as the non-compliance of the principles of natural justice is concerned, the High Court is of the opinion that even today, the counsel for the petitioner would not be able to satisfy the High Court as to the cause that could have been shown by the petitioner in case a notice to show cause when issued against him for debarment/blacklisting. “Notice of show cause before issuance of such debarment order would have been an useless formality, as in our considered opinion, the petitioner has no cause to show.”

The Jharkhand High Court directed the Registry to call for the following information from the two Part Time Tribunals, Coal Bearing Areas.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ananda Sen heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) raising the grievance that though their lands, both Raiyati as well as Gairmajarua, have been acquired by the Central Coalfields Limited/Eastern Coalfields Limited, compensation has not been paid in most of the cases.

The Petitioner alleged that the Part Time Tribunal, Coal Bearing Areas constituted at Godda and Ranchi are not effective in providing appropriate relief to the parties whose lands have been acquired by the Central Coalfields Limited/Eastern Coalfields Limited.

The High Court , therefore, directed the Registry to call for the following information from the two Part Time Tribunals, Coal Bearing Areas:

(i) The total number of cases pending year-wise and the stage in which the cases are pending.

(ii) The notification issued by the Coal Ministry in each year conferring the power of deciding the issues relating to compensation on each of the Tribunals for the last five years.

(iii) Monthly honorarium which is being paid to the Presiding Officer of the Tribunals.

The Bench has listed the matter on 27.09.2023 for further hearing.

The Uttarakhand High Court has partially allowed the proposal to cut thousands of trees to widen the road connecting an important tourist destination in Uttarakhand after having given thought to this conflict between man and nature, the need for development and protecting ecology and environment.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe passed this order while hearing a PIL filed by Ashish Kumar Garg .

By filing this PIL, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus against the respondents especially, State of Uttarakhand to stop felling of trees for the purpose of widening of road from Jogiwala / Ladpur/Sahastradhara Crossing/ Krishali Square/Pacific Golf Estate in which approximately 2,057 trees are earmarked for felling.

The Court while issuing notice on 11.05.2022 directed in the interregnum that in pursuance of the proposed road widening no trees shall be felled by the respondents.

The Court noted,

In the meantime, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit and they have stated that widening of the road is very much necessary for the proper development of communication and tourism in the State of Uttarakhand and that they proposed to transplant the precious trees and fruit bearing trees but they want to fell certain trees which are not very ecology friendly, viz, eucalyptus.

Counsel for the petitioner would raise objections to the felling of eucalyptus trees also on the ground that a report has been submitted that such trees are also good for the ecology and have cooling effect on the ecology.

However, the Court does not agree with the findings of that report, which appears at the rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by respondents, as it is well-known that eucalyptus trees have adverse effect on soil conservation and soil texture and has also adverse effect on the water table of that area.

“So we, after having given anxious thought to this serious issue of conflict between man and nature, the requirement of development and protecting ecology and environment, have come to the conclusion that we should accept the proposal submitted by the State of Uttarakhand through Executive Engineer, PWD, Rishikesh with certain modifications,” the Court observed.

In that view of the matter, the Court modified the earlier order dated 06.04.2022 with the following directions:-

a) That widening of the road shall continue but, out of 2057 trees that are proposed to be felled, only 1006 eucalyptus trees are allowed to be felled by the authorities in the widening of road. As far as 79 trees are concerned, as per the counter affidavit they shall remain, as is their basis and they shall not be cut or harmed in any way. Regarding the rest 972 trees, which include valuable fruit bearing trees belonging to the precious flora of the SubHimalayan region shall be transplanted to a suitable place as undertaken by C.S Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel for the State as well as by Dhirendra Kumar, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rishikesh Division.

b) We further direct that the respondents shall also plant appropriate trees, in addition to construction of the road and transplantation of trees existing thereon, as per the recommendations of DFO, Mussoorie on both sides of the proposed road. Not only such trees shall be planted but appropriate steps shall be taken in the next five years for their protection, watering and manure/ fertilizer etc. and then in every six months the State Government will submit a report regarding it.

“With such observations, the matter will be listed after six months awaiting the report of the concerned authorities. The first report will be submitted in the second week of December, 2022,” the order reads.

The Uttarakhand High Court on March 23 disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to  the respondent State to notify the Rules under Anand Marriage Act, 1909 and also to issue guidelines to register the marriage of people of Sikh Community under the Anand Marriage Act, 1909.

The PIL filed by one Amanjot Singh Chadha has also prayed that proper Rules be framed for making provisions for registration of marriage of people of Sikh community.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the State in this case wherein it is stated as follows:

“19. That the contents of paragraph no. 15 of the Writ Petition (PIL) so far the same relates to the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, being matter of record need no further comments. So far rest of the contentions made by the petitioner in the paragraph under reply, are not admitted. It is submitted that in the State of Uttarakhand, under the Uttarakhand Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rules, 2012, formulation of an arrangement / mechanism for registration of Sikh Marriages for the purposes of facilitation of proof of marriage ceremony (commonly known as Anand Karaj) customary among the Sikhs, has been proposed and it took at least three months’ time to pass the concerned Rules from the level of Hon’ble Cabinet.

Also Read: PIL in Supreme Court seeks directions to rehabilitate Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs, who migrated after mass exodus

It is further submitted that the compulsory registration of all marriages will help in preventing child marriage, check, bigamy or polygamy, help women to exercise their rights of maintenance from husband and custody of children, enable widows to claim inheritance and to serve as deterrent to husband deserting their wives and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Detailed reply in regard to the same has already been given in preceding paragraphs of this counter affidavit, contents whereof are reiterated.

In view of the above, the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe directed the Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand to take appropriate steps for putting the aforesaid proposal before the Cabinet and after approval of the Cabinet also take steps for publishing the same in the Gazette and place the same before the Legislative Assembly.

Also Read: States can declare minority communities on the basis of religion, language: Centre tells Supreme Court

“We consider it appropriate that necessary Rules must be framed by the State of Uttarakhand for registration of marriage of people of Sikh community under the Anand Marriage Act, 1909”

observed the Court while disposing the PIL.