RAGHURAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner had taken time to show his locus standi to file the present writ petition. However, no additional document or material has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ajaib Singh and another Vs. The State of Punjab and others, (2013 - 4) PLR 367 which deals with the Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 ('Rules' - for short) particularly Rules 6 and 7 thereof. Rule 6 of the Rules provides that ordinarily, a PIL may be entertained on any subjects like; bonded labour matters, neglected children, petitions from riot victims, petitions complaining of harassment or torture of persons belonging Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes by the others or by the police, petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, forest and wild life and petitioners complaining violation of human rights. Rule 7 provides that the Registry shall be entitled to verify the antecedents of a person, society or an association who invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court on the cause of public interest, besides, wherever the Registry has any doubt on such antecedents, an office note to this effect is to be put up, except on the petitions which are received by post.

(3.) The Registry raised objections in the present petition that has been filed. The petitioner was asked as to how the present case falls under the Rules, besides, it was informed that the writ petition be filed according to the directions passed in Ajaib Singh's case (supra) which it was mentioned was available on the website of the High Court.