Parth Prateem Sahu ORDER
Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
1. The Petitioner, who is a practising Advocate of this Court has filed this writ petition under the head of 'Public Interest Litigation' with following relief(s):-
"10(i) Strike down Rule 81 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
10(ii) Strike down Rule 81 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 as being violative of the fundamental rights of the people of Chhattisgarh guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India;
10(iii) Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice."
2. The case of the Petitioner is that public interest litigations are being filed by way of letter petitions and also by filing a writ petition, but for filing of a writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation, there is a requirement under Rule 81 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 ('Rules of 2007', for short) for depositing an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards security at the time of filing of the writ petition. Making it mandatory for the Petitioner filing public interest litigation for deposit of Rs. 5,000/- is arbitrary because many of the public interest litigations could not see the doors of the Court only on account of heavy burden of security deposit of an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as precondition for filing of the public interest litigation.
3. Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that public interest litigation is a mode of litigation to provide access to justice to poor, deprived, vulnerable, discriminated and marginalised sections of society. She further submitted that Rule 81 provided under the Rules of 2007 for mandatory deposit of Rs. 5,000/- as security is discouraging the people of the State to approach High Court of Chhattisgarh by filing public interest litigation and thereby weaker section of society is being deprived of to get justice; requirement of security deposit of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 81 of the Rules of 2007 is also causing hindrance for people/citizens who wants to knock the doors of justice by raising the issues of public interest and importance. She further submitted that there is no requirement under the Rules of 2007 for depositing amount towards security in other nature of cases, therefore, it is discriminatory in nature. She also submitted that in Hon'ble Supreme Court and most of the High Courts, there is no provision for mandatory deposit of amount towards security. She also submitted that Rule 81 of the Rules of 2007 grants discretion to the Court to exempt/payment of security deposit, but no guidelines have been framed under the Rules of 2007 for exercising such discretion. She lastly submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court had encouraged filing of public interest litigations to preserve and protect the fundamental rights of marginalised sections of society, but Rule 81 of the Rules of 2007 is violating fundamental rights.
4. Per contra, Mr. Shailendra Dubey, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that requirement of deposit of security amount of Rs. 5,000/- at the time of presentation of public interest litigation is in no way in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but it ensures that the litigant approaching this Court under public interest litigation should approach with responsibility and does not misuse the jurisdiction of High Court under the garb of public interest litigation by filing frivolous litigation with vested interest. He further submitted that making rule for depositing a security amount under Rule 81 of the Rules of 2........