Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 942 (JHR)

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State of Jharkhand

2011-10-11

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2011
ORDER A detailed order was passed on 21.6.2011 in W.P.(PIL) No. 1325 of 2011. This Court has observed in the said order that in extra ordinary situation of the State of Jharkhand where more people are living under the poverty line and are consisting of the member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and where the Governments were not stable after the formation of the State of Jharkhand, P.I.L., in fact, gave relief to the public and now it is the right time to review the situation by this Court so as to activate the Government so that the public may get the relief from the Government itself without intervention of the High Court. The above observation was made to indicate that if the Government will start working, the Court may not pass some orders which otherwise are required to be passed in public interest litigations. This Court after taking note of so many facts has also considered the Litigation Policy, 2011 of the State of Jharkhand and issued several directions. 2. The State was directed to appoint learned counsel Mr. R.R.Mishra as special counsel in this case on special remuneration, which obviously, in a petition which can reduce the litigation expenditure of the State Government, if the said Litigation Policy is implemented by the State Government and is not put in the cold storage. On repeated asking, learned counsel Mr. Mishra has submitted that he has not been paid remuneration and he would not have agreed in assisting the Court even without any remuneration. 3. The question of remuneration is not important for learned counsel which we understand from the standard of Bar here in the Jharkhand High Court, but it was only a test filler given to the State Government where the State Government to know whether the State is serious in taking the issues at its own level. We would like to know on the next occasion whether the remuneration has been paid or not, but will not pass the further direction to the State Government if the State is not in a position to pay the remuneration to the counsel who has already assisted the Court in a large number of cases very effectively. We would like to know on the next occasion whether the remuneration has been paid or not, but will not pass the further direction to the State Government if the State is not in a position to pay the remuneration to the counsel who has already assisted the Court in a large number of cases very effectively. The counsel has submitted that the State actively took up the matter and convened the meeting and thereafter has constituted committees namely State Empowered Committee, District Empowered Committee and Screening Committee and the Litigation Policy and the notification regarding the above three committees as well as the role of the Nodal Officer has been made available at the Portal of the Jharkhand Government under the Department of Law for its wide publication. 4. In the State of Jharkhand we can understand that the litigants and the mass are not well conversant with the latest technology of Net, and therefore, it would have been better if the constitution of these committees and the role of the Nodal Offices would have been made available to the public by distribution of even the Leaflets or by advertisement in the Newspapers so as to attract the public towards the redressal of their grievance through the Litigation Policy Scheme which would avoid the heavy litigation expenditure of the Government. We can only indicate towards the situations, but it is for the State Government to accept or not to accept. However, we are making it clear that the justice is right of the public and the Courts are meant to do the justice. Therefore, we are making it clear that justice can be made easily accessible as well as cheap for the public and there can be less burden upon the State Exchequer if the grievances are redressed when they are brought to the notice of the competent officers. 5. Before directing the litigants to approach the competent authorities of the Government under the Litigation Policy before filing of the public interest litigation or even any other litigation, we want to assure the said mechanism to be strong so that instead of reducing the unnecessary litigation, the Courts' litigation may not increase by asking the litigants to first approach such committees and then again we may find that the grievance has not been redressed by those authorities even in legitimate cases. 6. 6. In view of the above reasons, the State is directed to place on record the notification by which the committees were constituted instructions which were given to the committees and the Nodal officer and the time limit within which the issues raised by the parties will be addressed by the Government and will be conveyed to the parties who approach the Government. 7. The detailed affidavit may be filed by the respondents by 14.11.2011 and the matter be placed on board on 18.11.2011. 8. This petition shall not be treated as tied up matter with any public interest litigation including W.P.(PIL) No. 1325 of 2011, and this petition being W.P.(PIL) No. 4000 of 2011 be kept separate. 9. A copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the State who may communicate this order to the State Government.