Amitava Roy, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. U.N. Bhandari, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Dinesh Vishnoi, for the petitioner. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not felt necessary to issue formal notice to the respondents.
(2.) THE pleaded averments reveal that the instant petition for registering a public interest litigation, has been filed for the perceived inaction of the respondents in having failed to take steps in the matters of speedy and effective justice and for the purposes of sub -serving the Rule and the mandate of legislation for speedy, cheaper and effective justice". The petitioner has introduced itself to be a body registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 devoted to the cause of justice and comprises of legal luminaries, some of whom have adorned high and respectable positions in the higher echelons of the judicial institution. The petitioner has claimed that a thorough research has been made by it in the subject matter of the present petition to initiate a public interest litigation. While highlighting the significance of public confidence in the present judicial system as well as the prejudicial impact of meagre allocation of budget for the overall infrastructure thereof, the avowed objectives motivating the enactment of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1987'), the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as 1996 Act), amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter also referred to as 'the CPC/Code') and the Act 1987, have been narrated. It has been asserted as well that inspite of such salutary legislative innovations, the efforts for reducing the pendency of cases as well as "new institutions of cases in courts could not be checked for want of needed vision and required education". The aspects bearing on Section 89 of the CPC, the legislations referred to hereinabove and the importance of pre -litigation mediation and adjudication has been emphasized. Reference has also been made of a news item dated 22.3.2013 of the local daily "Dainik Bhaskar" carrying comments on various facets pertaining to the desirability of speedy dispensation of justice. Attention has also been drawn to old pending cases and the essentiality of early disposal thereof in view of the above legal provisions, and above all, the mandate of Article 39A of the Constitution of India. That the Case Flow Management Rules, 2006 framed by the High Court have seemingly remained unimplemented, has been asserted as well. Qua Section 89 of the CPC, lack of awareness in the judiciary to that effect, has been imputed. It has been alleged as well that under the ADR mechanism, though huge amounts are being expended for setting up legal aid institutions all over the State and towards literature for legal education and awareness, the public at large and the litigants have not been benefited thereby. That Lok Adalats under the Act 1987 have not been notified, and further permanent, continuous and regular Lok Adalats for pre -litigation mediation and conciliation have not been set up in the State, have been asserted as well. It has been suggested that a direction be issued to the subordinate judiciary providing time limit for early disposal of the application under the 1996 Act as well as for early disposal of the objections etc. under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Reference has also been made to a representation dated 14.3.2013 submitted to the Chief Justice of this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Executive Chairman, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority on the above issues.
(3.) THE following reliefs have been prayed for: - (i) Direct the Union of India to implement and take care of the appointment of the Judges approximately in time i.e. six months in advance. At present at least about 10 seats out of the sanctioned strength of Rajasthan High Court are lying vacant. Appropriate step be taken by the Union of India to grant suitable budget for having the infrastructure of the subordinate courts and increase the present number of judges after considering the number of pending cases and new institutions. (ii) Appropriate strength of the staff be maintained and filled as per the norms to be fixed in accordance with the number of cases. (iii) The provisions of the Case Flow Management Rules, 2006 be implemented in letter and spirit so that certain class/category of the cases to be included are also given precedence in the matters of disposal. It requires to be drastically amended by a committee of jurists with a proper feedback from knowledgeable persons and Advocates. (iv) The criminal appeals be decided early and appropriately by establishing the bench only for the purpose on regular basis. The benches for the purposes of civil matters be appropriately framed/set -up wherein only the hearing cases are listed at least for three days in a week. (v) The monthly cause list or the yearly cause list be published so as to show the pendency of the cases. (vi) Appropriate directions be issued to the registry/all the courts in the State of Rajasthan to dispose of the applications u/s. 34 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within a period of four months and not later than six months. The matters u/s. 34 of the Arbitration Act be shown in the monthly statements/reports submitted by the District Judges and Additional District Judges in the State of Rajasthan. (vii) In the monthly statement submitted by the subordinate courts a column be added to the effect as to in how many cases of civil nature resort to section 89 of the CPC has been made with what result? It has though been provided in A.D.R. Manual 2009 and the Hon'ble Inspecting Judges of each District be advised to implement the said provision. Further to it the Presiding Officers who utilize their persuasive skills in getting the civil cases referred to Arbitration and mediation should be allowed credition for each such in the category of their case disposal quota. (viii) The Permanent Lok Adalats be established as per the provisions of law for public utility services which are required to work as per the rules for six days in a week right from 10:30 AM to 5:00 AM. These Lok Adalats should be headed either by the retired Judges of the District Judge cadre or from and out of the retired High Court Judges who are willing to work. The notification be issued for this purpose. Sitting District Judges Land Additional District Judges are already over hundred and they do not have the needed time for the purpose though additional amounts in thousand are being paid. (ix) The State Government be directed to notify and enlarge the list of the matters which could be undertaken for the purposes of decision/adjudication in certain other matters besides the matters which are already notified so as to enlarge the scope of Lok Adalats regarding disputes in public utility services organizations. (x) Establish continuous and regular Permanent Lok Adalat for pre -litigation mediations at High Court level in the High Court premises at both places i.e. at Jodhpur and Jaipur on the basis of all the six days in a week to be headed by the suitable person out of the present or past judges, advocates to be chosen from Bar. (xi) The legal awareness committee be established and notified immediately so as to education the people and suggest the Legal Services Authority to take up such plans and schemes which may yield result. (xii) The funds available with the legal services authority be utilized/in the public interest and particularly in litigant interest, the literature be distributed to the advocates/Bar Association freely or on a very nominal cost including to the public authorities so as to have the education and the knowledge regarding the litigation, dispensation of justice pre -litigation mediation etc. (xiii) While appointing panel Arbitrators it should also be stated that in matters of time and fee they shall follow ADR Manual, 2009 in letter and spirit as framed by the High Court. (xiv) The Union of India be advised to suitably amend the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 so as to inculcate trust and faith of the litigating public above the A.D.R. Methods to be expeditious and in expensive by taking note of the present lacunas specially in sections 11, 32, 34 and 37 of the Act of 1996.;