If a proceeding in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has already been entertained and is pending no other petition or communication relating to the same matter shall be entertained: Chhattisgarh High Court
If a proceeding in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has already been entertained and is pending no other petition or communication relating to the same matter shall be entertained has been upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through a division bench led by HON’BLE SHRI ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON’BLE SHRI N.K. CHANDRAVANSHI, in the case of Gram Panchayat Narmadapur v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPPIL No. 20 of 2022). The challenge in this public interest litigation is, essentially, in respect of Swami Atmanand English Medium Co-operative Society Scheme, whereby, according to the petitioner, pre-existing Government Hindi Medium High and Higher Secondary Schools, are being converted to Swami Atmanand English Medium High and Higher Schools. The writ petition is filed by Gram Panchayat, Narmadapur and in this petition prayer is also made for a direction not to shift or shut down Government Multi-Purpose Hindi Medium School at Mainpat, District Surguja. The Respondents submits that there is already public interest litigation pending, being WP (PIL) No. 02 of 2022, on a similar issue, in which Mr Apoorva Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, himself appears. She has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 80(1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 (for short, ‘Rules of 2007’) to contend that this petition may not be entertained in view of the pendency of public interest litigation on the same subject matter. Mr Tripathi submits that though fundamentally the issue raised in this petition is the same as that of WP (PIL) No. 02 of 2022, the school, in that case, was different. Rule 80(1) of the Rules of 2007, reads as follows: “80(1) if a proceeding in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has already been entertained and is pending no other petition or communication relating to the same matter shall be entertained. Any person 3 wishing to place any other facet of the same matter before the Court, may accordingly apply for directions in the pending matter.” The court stated that when the fundamental issue raised in this public interest litigation is the same as that of an already pending public interest litigation, the name of the school hardly has any relevance.
1(Proceeding through Video Conferencing)AFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WPPIL No. 222Gram Panchayat Manora Through Sarpanch Smt. Tulsi Bhagat W oShivnandan Bhagat Aged About 34 Years R o Gram Manora Block AndP. S. Manora District JashpurPetitioner Versus 1.State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Higher EducationDepartment Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar NawaRaipur District Raipur2.The Commissioner Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan Atal NagarNawa Raipur District Raipur3.Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment Shastri Bhawan Rajendra Prasad Road New Delhi110001 4.The Collector Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 5.The District Education Officer Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh Respondents(Cause title taken from Case Information System)__________________________________________________________For Petitioner: Mr. Apoorva Tripathi AdvocateFor Respondent Nos.1 2 4 & 5: Ms. Meena Shastri Addl. AGFor Respondent No. 3: Mr. Ramakant Mishra ASG.__________________________________________________________Hon ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami Chief JusticeHon ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi Judge Order on BoardPer Arup Kumar Goswami Chief Justice08.02.2022Heard Mr. Apoorva Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner. Alsoheard Ms. Meena Shastri learned Additional Advocate General 2appearing for respondent Nos. 1 2 4 & 5 and Mr. Ramakant Mishra learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India appearing forrespondent No.3.2. The challenge in this public interest litigation is essentially inrespect of Swami Atmanand English Medium Co operative SocietyScheme whereby according to the petitioner pre existing GovernmentHindi Medium High and Higher Secondary Schools are being convertedto Swami Atmanand English Medium High and Higher Schools.3. The writ petition is filed by Gram Panchayat Manora and in thispetition prayer is also made for a direction not to shift or shut downGovernment Primary Middle Higher Secondary School Manora District Jashpur.4. Ms. Meena Shastri learned Additional Advocate General submitsthat there is already a public interest litigation pending being WP(PIL)No. 022 on a similar issue in which Mr. Apoorva Tripathi learnedcounsel for the petitioner himself appears. She has drawn attention ofthe Court to Rule 80(1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules 2007to contend that this petition may not be entertainedin view of the pendency of a public interest litigation on the same subjectmatter.5. Mr. Tripathi submits that though fundamentally the issue raised inthis petition is same as that of WP(PIL) No. 022 the school in thatcase was different.6. Rule 80(1) of the Rules of 2007 reads as follows : 3“80(1)If a proceeding in the nature of PublicInterest Litigation has already been entertained and ispending no other petition or communication relating tothe same matter shall be entertained. Any personwishing to place any other facet of the same matterbefore the Court may accordingly apply for directionsin the pending matter.”7. When the fundamental issue raised in this public interest litigation issame with that of an already pending public interest litigation name ofschool hardly has any relevance.8. In view of provisions of Rule 80(1) of the Rules of 2007 we do notentertain this petition. If the petitioner wishes to place any other facet ofthe matter before the Court he may accordingly apply for directions in thepending matter.9. With the above observation the petition stands disposed of. Sd Sd (N.K Chandravanshi) Chief Justice Judge Chandra 