Madras High Court
222 East Street vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 February, 2018
1
B E F O R E T H E MADU R AI B E N C H O F MADRA S HI GH C O U R T
DAT E D : 0 7 . 0 9 . 2 0 1 8
C O R AM :
T H E HO N O U R A B L E MR. J U S T I C E T. RA J A
And
T H E HO N O U R A B L E MR. J U S T I C E K RI S H N A N R AMA S AM Y
W. P(MD)N o s . 4 1 5 1 & 1 2 6 4 8 o f 2 0 1 8
W. P.(MD)N o. 4 1 5 1 o f 2 0 1 8 :
Abdullah,
S/o.Mohammed Hussain,
President, Integrated Manapparai Taluk,
Manavarai and Iravi Pasanatharkal
Farmer Association,
Register No.198 of 2013,
1222 East Street, Puthanatham Post,
Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By the Chief Secretary to Government,
Agricultural Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
2.The Director,
Tamil Nadu Agricultural Department,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
3.R.Ravi (433/84-85),
Deputy Director of Agricultural Department,
Trichy, Trichy District. ... Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the
Respondents No.1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the 3rd
Respondent in respect of misappropriation of Government funds in the
Agricultural Department Tamil Nadu pertaining to Cr.No.2 of 2015
pending on the file of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department
Trichy against the 3rd Respondent on the basis of the Petitioner's
representation dated 07.02.2018, within a time to be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Joel Paul Antony
For R1 & R2 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Senior Counsel
for
Mr.K.Rajkumar
***
W. P.(MD)N o. 1 2 6 4 8 o f 2 0 1 8 :
Abdullah
S/o.Mohammed Hussain,
President, Integrated Manapparai Taluk,
Manavarai and Iravi Pasanatharkal
Farmer Association,
Register No.198 of 2013,
1222 East Street, Puthanatham Post,
Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Agricultural Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Personnel and Administrative
Reforms Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
3.The Director,
Tamil Nadu Agricultural Department,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
4.R.Ravi (433/84-85),
Deputy Director of Agricultural Department,
Trichy District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a a Writ of Mandamus directing the
Respondents 1 to 3 herein to consider the representation of the
petitioner, dated 28.4.2018 and transfer the 4th Respondent herein from
the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Trichy District to any other
District in accordance with letter dated 25.5.1992 of the 2nd Respondent
herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Senior Counsel
for
M/s.AL.Gandhimathi
For R1 to R3 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Special Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Senior Counsel
for
M/s.Veera Associates
***
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
C O MMO N O R DE R
(Ord er o f th e C o ur t w a s m a d e by K RI S H N A N R AMA S AMY, J .) The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.4151 of 2018 is filed for a public interest relief, for a Mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the 3rd Respondent in respect of misappropriation of Government funds in the Agricultural Department Tamil Nadu pertaining to Cr.No.2 of 2015 pending on the file of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Trichy against the 3rd Respondent on the basis of the Petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2018, within a time to be fixed by this Court.
2.The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.12648 of 2018 is filed for a public interest relief, for a Mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 and 3 to consider the representation dated 07.02.2018 and transfer the fourth respondent from the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Thiruchirappalli Disrict to any other District in accordance with letter dated 25.05.1992 of the second respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
3.The case of the petitioner is that he is the President of Integrated Manapparai Taluk, Manavari and Kuruvai Pasanatharkal Farmer Association, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. The writ petitions have been filed by him in the capacity as President of the said Association. According to the petitioner, the Association was formed with an object of serving the agriculturists in the District of Trichy. The Department of Agriculture of Trichy District used to conduct every year Uzhavar Festival with the object to protect the agriculture and the farmers of the State. Accordingly, the Uzhavar Festival was conducted in Manapparai Taluk from 14.04.2013 to 16.05.2013. About these Uzhavar Festival, the Assistant Director of Agriculture was instructed to issue pamphlets and brought awareness among the farmers. However, no widespread pamphlets were issued by the officers of the Agriculture Department in Manapparai and they have created fake bills and documents to show as if more than 1,34,251 agriculturists had participated and Rs.1,36,99,140/- had been incurred for conducting the farmer festival.
4.It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Government funds had been misappropriated under the guise of conducting farmer festivals as if festivals were conducted in more than 482 villages and by creating http://www.judis.nic.in 6 bogus papers, rubber stamps and bills, huge public amount was misappropriated and swindled by some of the officials in the Agriculture Department with the collusion of the fourth respondent in W.P.(MD)No. 12648 of 2018 and third respondent in W.P.(MD)No.4151 of 2018 (hereinafter called as fourth respondent) and 18 others in the Agriculture Department. For the purpose of conducting the enquiry about the misappropriation of fund during the year 2013-2014, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.9994 of 2014 seeking direction to the second respondent to conduct enquiry by considering his representations dated 09.05.2013, 23.05.2013, 10.06.2013 and 07.04.2014 and the same is pending before this Court. The petitioner herein also filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19985 of 2014 seeking direction to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Trichy to register an FIR against the fourth respondent and 18 others. Accordingly, this Court had issued direction and FIR was also registered in Crime No.2 of 2015 for the offences Under Sections 403, 409, 468, 471, 477(A), 409 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 28.01.2015, wherein the petitioner was examined as P.W.1. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 15532 of 2016 seeking to transfer the criminal case to the CBI from the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Trichy. In the said case, this http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Court vide order dated 19.01.2018, was pleased to direct the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Trichy, to complete the investigation within a period of twelve months.
5.The main grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent tried to tamper the witness and also threatened the petitioner with dire consequences for continuing the process of making representation against him. The fourth respondent was appointed as Director of Agriculture, Trichy and in view of the same, he is accessible to the records and is trying to tamper the witness and also Government records. The petitioner also brought into the knowledge of the Court that the second respondent by letter dated 25.05.1992 has instructed that whenever enquiries/investigations are taken up by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in appropriate cases, after careful consideration, suggestions are made for transferring the accused public servants concerned, to far off places and posting them in non-sensitive jobs. Therefore, the petitioner filed his representation dated 07.02.2018 to the respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(MD)No.12648 of 2018, to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent to transfer him from the present place to some other District. Since his representation was not http://www.judis.nic.in 8 considered, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.4151 of 2018 praying for a direction to consider his representation dated 07.02.2018 as Public Interest Litigation.
6.While the criminal case and the writ petitions are pending, still the fourth respondent is being allowed to work as Deputy Director of Agriculture in the same District. Therefore, the petitioner sent representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 28.04.2018, wherein he has again pleaded to transfer the fourth respondent to some other District. Since his representation was not considered, he filed the present W.P. (MD)No.12648 of 2018 as Public Interest Litigation for a direction againt the respondents 1 to 3 to transfer the fourth respondent to some other District based on his representation dated 28.04.2018.
7.On the other hand, the respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(MD)No.4151 of 2018 filed their detailed counter affidavit stating that even though the petitioner has given complaint against 18 other persons, he is specifically targeting the third respondent in W.P.(MD)No.4151 of 2018 and fourth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.12648 of 2018 (hereinafter called as fourth respondent), with an ulterior purpose and motive. The petitioner under http://www.judis.nic.in 9 the garb of running farmers association, is misusing its name for his personal gains and under the guise of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner redressed his personal grievances and the writ petition is not the Public Interest Litigation, but it is personal interest litigation, at the instance of certain vested interest, who targets the post held by the fourth respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is not filed with any bona fide, hence the same is liable to be dismissed. Further, they have also pointed out that the Public Interest Litigation will not lie in the service matters, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases.
8.The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 also submitted that the Uzhavar Festival was conducted from 14.04.2013 to 16.05.2013 as per the instructions and guidelines given in G.O.No.69, Agriculture (AP1) Department, dated 10.04.2013 without any violation. During the said programme, the team of officers contacted 8646 farmers and 4395 soil samples were collected from the area concerned and 383 demonstrations were conducted. For the said Uzhavar Festival, the Government allotted a sum of Rs.1,36,99,140/- and the said amount was properly utilised and vouchers and bills are properly maintained without any deviation. Even though, there is no deviation in conducting the said programme, as http://www.judis.nic.in 10 requested by the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire the complaint of the petitioner. The said enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry, has submitted a detailed enquiry report on 07.08.2014 as follows:-
(a).As there was no sufficient stocks available in the Bio Control laboratory, it has been purchased from Sri Ganapathy Womens Self Help Group on a comparative rate basis and supplied the Psudomonas Bio-
pesticides.
(b).In the Uzhaar Peruvizha Festival, the Farmers have participated in all the villages from 200 to 300 persons and their signatures have also been obtained properly. The allegation of non-conducting farmers festival or non-participation of Farmers are all found to be false.
(c).Similarly, the refreshments have been provided for 250 Farmers at the rate of Rs.59.96 per meal as guided in the G.O. Similarly delicious meals have been provided as per the menu indicated in the G.O.
(d).Similarly, on the allegation of misappropriation of funds allocated for vehicles, convoys, sign board, it is reported that proper procedure has been followed. Flex board with steel frames, audio, video setup, power backup everything has been properly done and there is no malpractice taken place as alleged.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11
(e).Finally, on the question of distribution of banians the report asserts that input kits have been properly distributed to 110 Farmers on first come first served basis as per G.O. and not for all farmers as indicated in the order of Higher authorities. Thus, the entire allegation thrown by the petitioner has been given a clear chit against the officials of the Agricultural Department and the complaint was found to be false.
9.While this being so, the petitioner is now seeking direction to the authorities to take disciplinary action against the fourth respondent and to transfer him from the present place of employment to any other place. The petitioner, being a third party to the service matter, has no lo c u s s t a n di to seek such an action against the fourth respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 further submitted that a person, who raises the grievances, must show how he has suffered a legal injury and generally a stranger, who has no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to interfere in the affairs of Government Department. The Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently cautioned the Courts against entertaining of Public Interest Litigation by unscrupulous persons, such as 'meddlers' who do not hesitate to abuse the process of Court. The Court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of process http://www.judis.nic.in 12 of Court and that ordinarily meddlesome, bystanders are not granted a visa. A pure and simple service disputes is sought to be camouflaged as a Public Interest Litigation. As the petitioner had already filed W.P.(MD)No. 9994 of 2014, having not satisfied with the order passed in the said writ petition, the petitioner has filed the present two writ petitions making same allegation again and again targeting all the individual officers and blackmailing them to grab money, therefore, this writ petition is not at all maintainable, he pleaded.
10.Arguing further, it is argued that the petitioner after obtaining a direction against 18 persons has given vide publicity through media and also by giving the order to the reporter to publish in their daily and the http://www.judis.nic.in 13 petitioner is also blackmailing them by saying that he will file 18 cases individually and as a first case, he has targeted the fourth respondent. The modus operandi is obviously for grabbing money. Therefore, the petitioner has misused his Farmers Association targeting the Government servants by giving false complaint to the authorities to take action in service matter, which is impermissible, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court held in various cases.
11.The third respondent in W.P.(MD)No.12648 of 2018 has raised the following preliminary issues on the maintainability of the writ petition as follows:-
(i).An association or Sangam cannot maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down a dictum in the case reported in 1995 SCC (1) 85 holding that Association cannot file a writ petition as it has no fundamental right under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The same was reiterated in catena of decision rendered by this Hon'ble Court as in the case of 'N a d ar M a h aj a n a S a n g a m'.
(ii).The petitioner herein given to vituperative attitude with an oblique motive and hence is incapable of maintaining the present writ http://www.judis.nic.in 14 petition as 'probono publico' on the settled proposition of law in S t at e o f Utt ara n c h al v. B al w e a nt S i n g h C h a u f al a n d O r s , reported in A I R 2010 S C 2550 and guidelines framed by this Hon'ble Court.
(iii).In service law jurisprudence, preferring public interest litigation petition seeking to transfer a Government Official is frowned upon. In 'D r. D ur u y o d h a n S a h u v. Jit h e n d r a Mi s r a', as reported in (1998) 7 SC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that th e third p arty h a s n o lo c u s s t a n di t o c a n v a s s th e l e g ality o r c o r r e ct n e s s o f th e a cti o n o f th e a d mi ni strativ e a ut h oriti e s . T h e H o n' bl e S u p r e m e C o urt in th e c a s e r e p ort e d in (2005) 1 S C C 590 h el d th at th e infl o w o f P I L s inv ol vin g s e r vi c e m att e r s c o ntin u e s u n a b at e d in th e c o urt s a n d s t r a n g e l y a r e e nt ert ain e d . T h e l e a s t th e Hig h C o urt s c o ul d d o i s t o thr o w th e m o ut o n th e b a si s o f th e s ai d d e ci si o n.
(iv).It is also further stated that the second respondent Department is only an advisory department and it has no role to play in the day to day administrative functioning of other departments and hence arraying the same as respondent is only to intimidate other respondents to gain his end.
http://www.judis.nic.in 15
(v).The petitioner herein has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No. 9985 of 2018 seeking for action against some named officials serving in the Department of Agriculture on the basis of his representation, dated 19.04.2018. The counter affidavits filed by the third respondent in the typed set of papers may be read as part and parcel of this counter affidavit. He has filed a petition in W.P.(MD)No.9994 of 2014 for a similar relief, therefore, it shows that the petitioner is a seasoned bully attempting to blackmail Government Servant to extort money. This could be clearly seen that the petitioner herein has also filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.4151 of 2018 as a 'probono publico' seeking action against the fourth names respondent and the same is pending on the file of this Hon'ble Court and hence, the petitioner herein under the guise of representing 13 odd agriculturists is causing havoc in the functioning of the Agriculture Department demoralizing the officials and hence, the petitioner herein shall not be permitted to raise frivolous and uncontroverted allegations against officials of the Agriculture Department serving in Thiruchirappalli District with an oblique motive and hence, the present petition is liable for dismissal at the threshold, it is pleaded.
http://www.judis.nic.in 16
12.The learned counsel for the third respondent also advanced his following arguments on the basis of merits as follows:-
12.1.The Uzhavar Peruvizha was conducted strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu and there was no violation in conducting the Uzhavar Festival. The said Uzhavar Peruvizha was conducted between 14.04.2013 to 16.05.2013 covering 28 revenue villages and contacted 8645 Farmers; 4395 soil samples were collected and 383 demonstrations to enlighten the agriculturists were conducted. For the said Uzhavar Peruvizha, the Government was pleased to allot a sum of Rs.1,36,99,140/-. The programme was conducted and the unspent amount of Rs.6,75,000/-, was returned to the Government.
12.2.In these circumstances, based on the petitioner's complaint, the Additional Director of Agriculture (planning) was nominated as enquiry officer, who conducted in-depth enquiry into the allegation and subsequent to his enquiry, the enquiry officer filed a report stating that the said amount was properly utilised, vouchers and bills are maintained properly without any deviation. In the meantime, the petitioner filed W.P. (MD)No.9994 of 2014 and the same is pending before this Court. The http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Additional Director of Agriculture (planning), who conducted in-depth enquiry, after affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner, submitted as follows:-
(i).that there were no violation of the guidelines of the Government in conducting Uzhavar Peruvizha;
(ii).that since no sufficient stock of fertilizers were available in the Bio Control Laboratory, the same has been purchased from Sri Ganapathy Women Self Help group on a comparative rate basis and supplied the Psudomonas Bio-pesticides;
(iii).that in the Uzhavar Peruvizha Fetival, the farmers have participated in all the villages from 200 to 300 and their signatures have been obtained properly. The allegation of non conducting Uzhavar Peruvizha or non participation of farmers are all found to be false;
(iv).that refreshments have been provided to 250 farmers at the rate of Rs.59.96 per meal as per the guidelines and delicious meals have been provided as per the guidelines;
(v).that insofar allegation of misappropriation of funds allocated for vehicles, convoys, sign board, it was found that proper procedures http://www.judis.nic.in 18 have been followed. Flex Board with steel frames, audio, video, power backup have been properly done and there is no malpractice as alleged;
and
(vi).that on the question of distribution of banians, the report asserted that input kits have been properly distributed to 110 farmers on first come first served basis as per G.O.69, dated 10.04.2013 and not for all farmers as indicated in the order. Hence, the entire allegation made by the petitioner was falsified by the detailed in-depth enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer.
13.The report clearly reveals that there was no misappropriation of funds and the Rules and Regulations were duly complied with without any deviation. The petitioner has filed another Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19985 of 2014 seeking direction to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption to register an FIR against the fourth respondent as well as 18 other officials of revenue department. Hence, the complaint of the petitioner on completion of preliminary enquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, was reduced into FIR in Crime No.2 of 2015 under Sections 403, 409, 468, 471, 477(A), 409 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w http://www.judis.nic.in 19 Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the file of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Thiruchirappalli. Even after the filing of the FIR, the petitioner not being satisfied with the investigation, filed another Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15532 of 2016 seeking transfer of investigation from Vigilance Department to CBI. However, this Court was pleased to dispose of the petition by fixing time limit to complete the investigation within a period of twelve months from 19.01.2018.
14.While this being so, the petitioner gave two representations dated 07.02.2018 and 28.04.2018 to the authorities, to transfer the fourth respondent by virtue of interfering with the internal affairs of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and based on these two representations, the petitioner herein filed W.P.(MD)No.12648 of 2018 to transfer the fourth respondent from the present place to some other place, in order to prevent the interference of the fourth respondent in the investigation process. However, there is no complaint against the fourth respondent with regard to the interference with the investigation of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption. Further, the third respondent contended that the present writ petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation are not maintainable for the following conduct of the petitioner:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 20
(a).The petitioner herein has the habit of making frivolous complaints against officials of the Agriculture Department, who do not toe his line and especially the officials who are on the verge of retirement. From the year 2015, the petitioner has submitted complaint/allegation against 25 officials simultaneously he has also instituted several writ petition seeking for action against the officials of the Agriculture Department serving in Trichy District who are on the verge of attaining the age of superannuation. It can be safely presumed that the intention of the petitioner herein is only to coerce the Government servants who are in their twilight zone by sending false and uncontroverted allegations under the banner of a Sangam which on its role has only 13 members who are not even pursue agriculture as their avocation and hence, for his personal gain.
(b).The petitioner herein is a habitual offender having been involved in more than 10 criminal cases under various sections of law. In an illustrative instance, the Station House Officer, Puthanatham submitted http://www.judis.nic.in 21 a report to the District Collector, Thiruchirappalli as early as 26.07.2014 to the effect that the petitioner has collected huge money from the farmers on the pretext that he will redress their grievances before the Collector by using his position as the President of a Farmers' Association. It is pertinent to submit that the petitioner herein is a 'history sheeted' criminal in the year 1994 itself, because the petitioner herein has involved in several offences such as threatening mini bus operators, private fleet owners, Staffs of the Government Hospitals, Education and Highways Department and demanded money from them. All these facts go to show that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands, hence, this Writ petition shall fail, it is pleaded.
15.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent has advanced his arguments as follows:-
15.1.The fourth respondent strongly opposed the writ petition as the writ petition is not maintainable, since the writ petitioner filed the present petition to ventilate his personal grievance under the guise of Public Interest Litigation in the name of Farmers Association for his personal gain. Further, the petitioner is misusing the Farmers Association http://www.judis.nic.in 22 against the Government servants, who are working in various departments with an ulterior motive for grabing money and also threatening them to complaints against them before the vigilance, Police Department, Human Rights Commission, RTI and various allied departments to achieve his objects to grab money.
15.2.The petitioner is in the habit of giving complaint against those Government servants, who did not yield his demand and after filing the complaint before the Police or the cases before the Court, he withdrew the same as and when his legal object is achieved. To substantiate his contention, the third respondent filed the following documents:-
(i).The complaint given by one S.Syed Rasul, dated 18.08.2004, against the petitioner;
(ii).News item published in newspaper stating that the arrest of the petitioner due to the reason of demanding money from the Government Officers;
(iii).Also, the news item dated 15.08.2012 published in 'Muttrukai', wherein the petitioner was described as cheater and further it states that the petitioner is in the rowdy list of Puthanatham Police Station;
http://www.judis.nic.in 23
(iv).News item about the petitioner's conduct in 'Dinamalar' and 'Dinakaran', dated 01.08.2013;
(v).Further, he filed an FIR copy dated 30.07.2013 registered against the petitioner Abdullah. He also filed a news item about the conduct of the petitioner in 'Thinathanthi' and 'Dinamalar', dated 17.09.2014.
15.3.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent further contended that in the complaint given by the Sub-Registrar against the petitioner in connection with the demanding of money, investigation has been completed and FIR was also filed in Crime No.356 of 215 against the petitioner.
15.4.Further, the petitioner also gave a complaint on 01.09.2016 to the Chief Minister Cell, the Agriculture Minister, Chief Secretary to Agriculture Department and the Director of Agriculture and also as against some of the officers of the Tamil Nadu Government and the same were withdrawn by his letter, dated 14.10.2016 stating that those allegations are false and no such incident was happened. This clearly proves the conduct of the petitioner that as to how he threatened the http://www.judis.nic.in 24 officers and bring them into compromise and settle his personal grievance with them and subsequently withdrew the complaint.
15.5. The above said withdrawal of the complaint clearly proves beyond doubt the m al a fid e conduct of the petitioner in the present case and also the writ petitions have been filed with m al a fid e intention to harass the fourth respondent and other officers by virtue of interfering with the internal affairs of the department of agriculture. On these score, it is pleaded that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed with costs.
16.The main issues for consideration in these writ petitions are as follows:-
(1)Whether the present writ petitions have been filed in accordance with the Rules framed by this Court to regulate the Public Interest Litigation to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
(2)Whether the present writ petitions are filed pertaining to the service matters and if so, whether the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable in Service Matters?
(3).Whether the present writ petitions are liable to be rejected due http://www.judis.nic.in 25 to the unsatisfactory conduct of the petitioner?
17.P o i n t N o . 1 :
17.1.This Court has framed the Rules to regulate the Public Interest Litigations and the same was notified in the Tamil Nadu Gazette on 11th April, 2010. As per Rule, every Public Interest Litigant must follow the following Rules:-
“1 . .....
2 . ..... If it i s a S o ci et y o r A s s o ci ati o n o f p e r s o n s , th e w rit p e titio n e r m u s t e n cl o s e a R e s ol uti o n fr o m s u c h S o ci et y o r A s s o ci ati o n o f p e r s o n s , a ut h ori sin g th e p e titio n e r t o fil e th e w rit p e titio n a n d if th e b o d y i s d uly r e gi st e r e d with c o m p e t e nt a ut h ority, a c o p y o f th e B y e - la w o f th e s ai d b o d y a ut h ori sin g th e p e titio n e r t o fil e th e w rit p e titio n s h all b e e n cl o s e d .
17.2. In the present case, the petitioner has filed the Bye Law of the society, as per the Bye Law, he is acting as President of the Society. There is no rule prescribed in bye law permitting the President to file any case on behalf of the association. As mentioned above, in terms of Rule 2 of the Rules to regulate the Public Interest Litigation of this Court, clearly http://www.judis.nic.in 26 states that if any person to file Public Interest Litigation, on behalf of an Association, such person can be permitted only by way of appropriate authorisation by passing necessary resolution authorising such person to file a petition as Public Interest Litigation, on behalf of the association and the same resolution must be enclosed along with the writ petition.
But in the present writ petitions, we have perused the documents and it shows that the petitioner failed to furnish any such resolution as per the Rules laid down by this Court for filing the Public Interest Litigation. Therefore, on this ground, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 as above.
18.P o i n t N o . 2 :
18.1. Whether Public Interest Litigation is maintainable in service matters, that too, by a stranger?
18.3. It is pertinent to point out that already the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19985 of 2014 to register a case based on his complaint dated 01.11.2014. This Court, by order dated 09.01.2015 directed the respondents therein to file action taken report on or before 11.03.2015.
Consequent to the order passed by this Court, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Thiruchirappalli filed a case against the fourth http://www.judis.nic.in 27 respondent and others in Crime No.2 of 2015. Further, the petitioner also filed one more Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15532 of 2016 to transfer the investigation in Crime No.2 of 2015 to Central Bureau Investigation. In the said petition, this Court fixed 12 months time to complete the investigation. However, the petitioner came before this Court by way of present Public Interest Litigation to take action against the fourth respondent. Against fourth respondent a case in Crime No.2 of 2915 was registered and this Court granted 12 months time to complete the investigation to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department vide its order dated 19.01.2018. When the investigation is pending, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to take action against the fourth respondent vide, his representation dated 07.02.2008, wherein the petitioner prayed for, to stop any promotion, which clearly amount interfering into the fourth respondent's service matter.
18.4.The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.12648 of 2018 is filed to transfer the fourth respondent from the present place to any other place. Therefore, this also clearly comes under the purview of the service matter of the fourth respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases decided that Public Interest Litigation cannot be maintainable in a service matter.
http://www.judis.nic.in 28 18.5. Admittedly, the petitioner has given a representation dated 01.11.2014 before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thirichirappalli against the fourth respondent. On the basis of the said representation, Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19985 of 2014 was filed to register the complaint and the same was ordered as prayed for. Accordingly, a case was registered in Crime No.2 of 2015 against the fourth respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed one more Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15532 of 2016 for transfer of the investigation and the same was ordered directing the respondents therein to complete the entire investigation within twelve months. In the meantime, in order to interfere with the affairs of the respondents, particularly with the fourth respondent in his service matters, he gave two representations dated 07.02.2018 and 28.04.2018 to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent and filed W.P.(MD)Nos.4151 and 12648 of 2018 for the relief stated therein. So even on merits of the case also without completing the investigation, it is not possible to take action against the fourth respondent either by virtue of departmental action or to transfer the petitioner. Furthermore, the prosecuting authority, i.e. the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Thirichirappalli, also filed report and has not expressed anything with regard to the tampering of the witnesses. In such circumstances, interfering with the service matters http://www.judis.nic.in 29 and seeking prayer to transfer the investigation by the petitioner is unwarranted.
18.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of A S H O K KU M A R P A N D E Y v . S T A T E O F W E S T B E N G A L ( 2 0 0 4 ( 3 ) S C C 3 4 9 ) , held at page Nos.358 & 359 as follows:-
“ A s n ot e d s u p r a , a ti m e h a s c o m e t o w e e d o ut th e p e titio n s , w hi c h th o u g h titl e d a s p u bli c int e r e s t litig ati o n s a r e in e s s e n c e s o m e t hin g e l s e . It i s s h o c ki n g t o n ot e th at C o urt s a r e flo o d e d wit h larg e n u m b e r o f s o c all e d p u bli c int e r e s t litig ati o n s wh ere even a m i n u s c ul e p e r c e nt a g e can l e giti m at ely b e c all e d a s p u bli c int e r e s t litig ati o n s . T h o u g h th e p a r a m e t e r s o f p u bli c int e r e s t litig ati o n h a v e been in di c at e d b y thi s C o urt in larg e n u m b e r o f c a s e s , y e t u n mi n df ul o f th e r e al int e nti o n s a n d o bj e cti v e s , C o urt s a r e e nt ert ainin g s u c h p e titio n s a n d w a s tin g v al u a bl e ju di ci al ti m e w hi c h , a s n ot e d a b o v e , c o ul d b e o t h e r wi s e utiliz e d f or di s p o s al o f g e n uin e c a s e s . T h o u g h in D r. D ur y o d h a n S a h u a n d O r s . v. Jit e n d r a K u m a r Mi s h r a a n d O r s . ( AI R 1999 S C
114), thi s C o urt h el d th at in s e r vi c e m a tt e r s P I L s s h o ul d n ot b e e nt e rt ain e d , th e infl o w o f s o - c all e d P I L s inv ol vin g s e r vi c e m a tt e r s c o ntin u e s u n a b at e d in th e C o urt s a n d s t ra n g e ly a r e e nt ert ain e d . T h e l e a s t th e Hig h C o urt s c o ul d d o i s t o thr o w th e m o ut o n th e b a s i s o f th e s ai d d e ci si o n . T h e o t h e r int e r e s tin g a s p e c t i s th at in th e P I L s , o ffi ci al d o c u m e nt s a r e b e i n g a n n e x e d with o ut e v e n in di c atin g a s t o h o w th e http://www.judis.nic.in 30 p e titio n e r c a m e t o p o s s e s s th e m . In o n e c a s e , it w a s n oti c e d th at a n int e r e s tin g a n s w e r w a s gi v e n a s t o it s p o s s e s s i o n . It w a s s t at e d th at a p a c k e t w a s lyin g o n th e r o a d a n d w h e n o ut o f c uri o sity th e p e titio n e r o p e n e d it, h e f o u n d c o pi e s o f th e o ffi ci al d o c u m e nt s . W h e n e v e r s u c h friv ol o u s pl e a s a r e ta k e n t o e x pl ain p o s s e s s i o n , th e C o urt s h o ul d d o w e ll n ot o nly t o di s mi s s th e p e titio n s b ut al s o t o i m p o s e e x e m pl ar y c o s t s . It w o ul d b e d e s ira bl e f or th e C o urt s t o filt er o ut th e friv ol o u s p e titio n s a n d di s mi s s th e m wit h c o s t s a s a f or e- s t at e d s o th at th e m e s s a g e g o e s in th e rig ht dir e cti o n th at p e titio n s fil e d wit h o bli q u e m o ti v e d o n ot h a v e th e a p p r o v al o f th e C o urt s .” 18.7. The same principles have been reiterated in the subsequent decision, viz., B . S I N G H ( D O C T O R ) v . UNI O N O F I N D I A , 2 0 0 4 ( 3) S C C 3 6 3 .
18.8. Further, in the decision in B H O L A N A T H M U K H E R J E E v. R A M A K RI S HN A M I S S ION V I V E K AN ANDA C ENT EN A RY COL L EG E (( 2 0 1 1 ) 5 S C C 4 6 4 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that petitions, filed as Public Interest Litigation, in the service matters, are not maintainable.
18.9. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, makes it clear that the Public Interest Litigation is not http://www.judis.nic.in 31 maintainable in service matters. Accordingly, the above decision is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Hence the same is not maintainable, hence, it is rejected.
19. P o i n t N o . 3 :
19.1.The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Public Interest Litigation petitions can only be entertained at the instance of bona fide litigants. It cannot be permitted to be used by unscrupulous litigants to redress their personal and individual grievances as Public Interest Litigation.
19.2. The facts placed on record in the present writ petitions would clearly indicate that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. The petitioner has failed to establish his credentials for moving the Public Interest Litigation. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions clearly shows that the writ petitions had been filed by the petitioner with an ulterior motive.
19.3. When a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the Court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of Public Interest Litigation is really intended to http://www.judis.nic.in 32 unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other m al a fid e object.
19.4. Further, the conduct of the petitioner also is important to point out here. On the perusal of the documents filed by the fourth respondent clearly would indicate that the petitioner is not a man of with clean hand. He is a man filing petitions with ulterior motive to get personal benefits. It is just and necessary to point out one of the incidents, where the petitioner threatened the Sub Registrar, Manapparai, who gave complaint against the petitioner making several allegations, which is evident from the document filed by the respondents at page No.
38. An FIR also registered in Crime No.356 of 2015. In another incident, the petitioner gave a complaint to the Chief Minister Cell, the Agriculture Minister, Chief Secretary to Agriculture Department and the Director of Agriculture against one R.Chandrasekar on 1.09.2016 making several allegations. However, he has withdrawn the said complaint vide his letter, dated 14.10.2016 admitting the fact that he has given a false complaint and therefore, he withdrew the same. Further, he has stated in the said withdrawal letter that the said Chandrasekar has not done any mistake and hence, requested that there is no further action required. So, it http://www.judis.nic.in 33 reveals the m al a fid e motive of the petitioner first to threaten the officials and thereafter, after achieving his personal grievance, he used to withdraw the very complaint. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner only would indicate that he is not a man of the clean hand and the petitions are filed only to achieve his personal motive. Hence, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs and accordingly both writ petitions are dismissed.
20.While dismissing these writ petitions, we have decided to impose a heavy cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- in each petition) on the petitioner, for filing these writ petitions with m al a fid e intention for his personal gains. Out of which, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the credit of “D T S IDDHA M ED O F FI C E R C C RI P K M , A/C. N o. 1 0 7 6 7 8 2 3 1 7 7 , IF S C C OD E : S BIN 0 0 0 0 9 8 9, MIC R C OD E : 6 2 5 0 0 2 6 0 1 , B a n k : S B I , P e r iy a k ul a m ” and shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to “R oj a v a n a m Old A g e Ho m e , U t h a n g u di, M elur R o a d , N e a r Hi g h C o ur t”, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same may be reported to the Registry of this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 34 (T.R., J . ) (K. R. , J . ) rj2 0 7.0 9.2 0 1 8 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No To 1.The Chief Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 2.The Director, Tamil Nadu Agricultural Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 5. http://www.judis.nic.in 35 T.R A J A , J . and K RI S H N A N R AMA S AMY, J . rj2 http://www.judis.nic.in 36 Ord er m a d e in W. P(MD)N o s . 4 1 5 1 & 1 2 6 4 8 o f 2 0 1 8 0 7.0 9.2 0 1 8 http://www.judis.nic.in