Cuttack: The Orissa high court has fined petitioner Rs 20,000 for giving rules the go-by while filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
“The court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition as the petitioner has not adhered to Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010,” two-judge bench of acting Chief Justice B R Sarangi and Justice M S Raman observed on Tuesday.
Disha, a Jajpur-based organisation had filed a petition by way of a PIL seeking the court’s direction to the state authorities “to take immediate and adequate steps in the form of investigation, raids, seizures, detention of quacks, suppliers, sellers and prescribers or test and analyse, ban and control the circulation of the said drug/hazardous substance.”
According to the rules, before filing a PIL, the petitioner must send a representation to the authorities concerned to take remedial action. Details of such representation and reply, if any, from the authority concerned along with copies thereof must be filed with the petition. However, in urgent cases in which making of representation and waiting for response would cause irreparable injury or damage, petition can be filed straightway by giving prior notice of filing to the authorities concerned and/or their counsel.
During the course of hearing, the counsel, however, failed to answer whether the petitioner has complied with the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.
While dismissing the petition, the bench directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 20,000 in the Welfare Fund of Orissa High Court Bar Association within seven days. If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time “the same shall be recovered by initiating the proceeding under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962,” it cautioned.
This comes less than a fortnight after the HC imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on Ramachandra Behera and two others for filing a ‘frivolous PIL’ seeking its intervention to stop a water supply project work being carried out on the premises of a school at Govindpur in Cuttack district. While directing the petitioners to deposit Rs 10,000 in the High Court Bar Association’s Advocate Welfare Fund within seven days, the same bench had observed that the petition intended to stop development work in the state.
