Madras High Court
R.Veeramani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 January, 2013
Author: N.Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: K.N.Basha, N.Paul Vasanthakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24-1-2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.Nos.30326 of 2011, 18404 of 2012 and 31313 of 2012 MP.SR.Nos.141185 & 144183 of 2012 in W.P.No.30326 of 2011 MP.SR.Nos.141156 & 144182 of 2012 in W.P.No.18404 of 2012 and Connected miscellaneous petitions R.Veeramani ... Petitioner in W.P.Nos.30326/2011 and 18404/2012 S.A.Miyajan ... Petitioner/Party-in-person in W.P.No.31313/2012 Versus 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Secretary, Public Works Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 3. The Chief Engineer (Buildings) Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 4. The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents 1-4 in W.P.30326/2011 and 18404/2012 5. J. Ramesh ... 5th respondent in W.P.30326/2011 State of Tamilnadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, Public (Buildings) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. ... Respondent in W.P.No.31313/2012 (R-5 in W.P.No.30326/2011 has been impleaded as per order of this Court dated 10.12.2012 in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.30326/2011) Prayer in W.P.No.30326/2011: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the policy decision dated 19.08.2011 and reiterated in the impugned letter dated 08.12.2011, No.23564/Y2/2011-8 of the 2nd respondent to convert the new Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex at Omanthurar Estate, comprised in Block 59, Triplicane Village in S.Nos.3171/7, 3171/A, 3171/B into a Multi Super Specialty Hospital cum Medical College purpose as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, whimsical, capricious, irrational and violative of environmental laws. Prayer in W.P.No.18404/2012: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.846, Public (Buildings) Department, dated 14.09.2011 on the file of the first respondent, publishing the decision of the Council of Ministers, taken in the meeting held on 19.08.2011 and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No.31313/2012: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Letter No.4388/Buildings/2012-1 dated 28.02.2012 and quash the same. For Petitioner In W.P.Nos.30326/2011 and 18404/2012 : Mr.R.Viduthalai, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Neelakandan and Mr.M.Seenivasagam In M.P.No.1/2012 in W.P.No.30326/2011 : Mr.J.Ramesh, Party-in-person In W.P.No.31313/2012 : Mr.S.A.Miyajan Party-In-Person For Respondents : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan Advocate General and Mr.Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Venkatesh, Govt. Pleader COMMON ORDER
K.N.BASHA, J. & N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.
W.P.Nos.30326 of 2011 and 18404 of 2012 were originally posted before another Hon'ble Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Murugesan (as he then was) and Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.K.Sasidharan. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the Hon'ble Division Bench reserved for orders. However, these matters were posted again on 26.07.2012 and the Hon'ble Division Bench Ordered as hereunder:
"We de-reserve the orders. Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for it to be posted before some other Bench."
Thereafter a letter dated 8.8.2012 was submitted by Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Government Pleader, expressing urgency in posting these matters before some other Bench and as a result, these matters were placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted this Special Bench by an administrative order dated 20.8.2012 to hear these matters.
2. All these writ petitions are arising out of the common issue of shifting the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat from Omanthurar Government Estate to Fort St.George and the consequential decision to utilise the 'A' Block in the Omanthurar Government Estate as a Multi Specialty Hospital and as such, all these writ petitions have been taken up together for final hearing and after hearing the arguments of both sides, we are passing this common order.
3. W.P.No.30326 of 2011 has been filed challenging the Cabinet decision dated 19.8.2011 and the consequential letter dated 8.12.2011, ordering conversion of the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex at Omanthurar Government Estate, comprised in Block 59, Triplicane Village in S.Nos.3171/7, 3171/A, 3171/B into a Multi Super Specialty Hospital-cum-Medical College as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, whimsical, capricious, irrational and violative of environmental laws.
4. W.P.No.18404 of 2012 has been filed by the very same petitioner challenging G.O.Ms.No.846, Public (Building) Department, dated 14.9.2011 on the file of the first respondent, publishing the decision of the Council of Ministers, taken in the meeting held on 19.08.2011, and to quash the same.
5. W.P.No.31313 of 2012 has been filed by one S.A.Miyajan as Party-in-Person relating to the same issue of conversion of the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex at Omanthurar Government Estate, into a Multi Super Specialty Hospital.
6. M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.30326 of 2011 was filed for impleading Mr.Ramesh, practicing advocate, opposing the prayer made in these writ petitions and he was impleaded as party respondent as per the order dated 10.12.2012.
7. After hearing the elaborate arguments of both sides, we have reserved these matters on 10.12.2012 for judgment. Thereafter on 14.12.2012, Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners mentioned before one of us [K.N.Basha, J.] requesting to post these matters for Being Mentioned for the purpose of hearing the petitions filed by the petitioner in W.P.Nos.30326/2011 and 18404/2012 for reopening these matters. Pursuant to the above said oral representation, petitioners' counsel was directed to submit a letter to the Registry. Accordingly, a letter was submitted on 17.12.2012 after serving copy to the learned Government Pleader. The said request for reopening the case was strongly opposed by the learned Government Pleader as per his endorsement dated 17.12.2012, stating that he is strongly opposing reopening of these matters, as it is a delaying tactics. As a result, the petitions in MP.SR.Nos.141185 and 144183 of 2012 in W.P.No.30326 of 2011 and MP.SR.Nos.141156 and 144182 of 2012 in W.P.No.18404 of 2012 were posted before us For Maintainability on 7.1.2013. After hearing the submissions made by both sides, we have ordered to post the MP.SRs. also along with the main writ petitions for passing orders.
8. MP.SR.Nos.141185 and 144183 of 2012 in W.P.No.30326 of 2011 and MP.SR.Nos.141156 and 144182 of 2012 in W.P.No.18404 of 2012 have been filed to re-open the case in W.P.Nos.30326 of 2011 and 18404 of 2012 for the purpose of further hearing with regard to constitution of an Expert Committee.
9. The sequence of events leading to filing of the above writ petitions can be narrated as hereunder:
(i) On 24.5.1946, newly elected Madras Legislators met at Legislative Hall, Fort St.George, Chennai. The Legislative Assembly was shifted to Omanthurar Government Estate on 3.5.1952. On 29.4.1957, Legislative Assembly meetings were again held at Fort St.George and continued to be held till the new Secretariat was constructed at Omanthurar Government Estate in the year 2010.
(ii) In the year 1974, in the Secretariat Complex situated at Fort St.George, Chennai, a nine storied building was constructed and the same was named as 'Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai' for housing various departments.
(iii) In the year 1983, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu formulated an idea of constructing Assembly Complex in front of Fort St.George. Subsequently the said idea was changed to move the entire Secretariat to Trichy and make Trichy as the State Capital.
(iv) In the year 2003, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, who is also the present Chief Minister, had announced a plan of constructing an Administrative City with a view to shift the Secretariat to Thiruvidanthai and Thayyoor near Mamallapuram, Kancheepuram District. As the said project would take 15 to 20 years, the said proposal was changed to shift the Secretariat to Lady Wellington College premises, Chennai-4. As the said area was considered to be inadequate, in April 2003 another place was chosen, namely, Queen Mary's College, Chennai-4, for constructing the new Secretariat complex. As there was opposition for demolishing the Queen Mary's College buildings, the said proposal was subsequently changed and G.O.Ms.No.1080 (Public) Buildings Department dated 1.8.2003 was issued proposing to construct Secretariat complex at Anna University Campus, Kotturpuram, Chennai-600085.
(v) The Ministry of Forest, Government of India, issued notification prohibiting construction of Secretariat complex at Kotturpuram without obtaining environmental clearance by its proceedings dated 27.10.2003. Foundation stone was laid by the present Chief Minister in the Anna University Campus at Kotturpuram on 30.10.2003. On 14.9.2006, Environmental notification was issued for the environmental impact assessment for the Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex.
(vi) In the year 2006, elections were held for the 13th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. On 12.5.2007, the new Government announced its decision to construct Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex at Omanthurar Government Estate premises. Consequently, G.O.Ms.No.209, Public Works Department was issued on 4.7.2007 for the construction of New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex. Steps were taken for issuing tender notification and calling for tenders.
(vii) Ultimately, after obtaining models from the Architects and completing other formalities, on 10.12.2007, G.O.Ms.No.371, Public Works (H1) Department was issued constituting a Committee of Secretaries to advice the Chief Engineer, PWD (Buildings) in respect of space requirements and other facilities to be provided in the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex.
(viii) On 12.6.2008, foundation stone was laid at Omanthurar Government Estate for the Construction of New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex. Revised administrative sanction for construction of Block 'A' at the cost of Rs.425.57 crores was issued in G.O.Ms.No.316 Public Works (H1) Department on 25.10.2008. Last session of the 13th Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly at Fort St.George was held on 11.01.2010.
(ix) W.P.Nos.3421 & 3969 of 2010 were filed before this Court questioning the structural stability of the new Secretariat complex and the said writ petitions were dismissed by this Court by order dated 24.2.2010. G.O.Ms.No.54 Housing and Urban Development (UD-I) Department dated 8.3.2010 was issued granting Stability Certificate for the new Secretariat complex.
(x) The Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, officially inaugurated the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex in Block 'A' on 13.3.2010. During April 2010 and May 2010, First Session of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was held at the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex; second Session was held in the month of November 2010; third Session was held in the month of January 2011 with Governor's Address; and the fourth Session was held in the month of February 2011.
(xi) General Election to the 14th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was held on 13.4.2011. The election results were announced on 13.05.2011, resulting in change of the Government. The present Chief Minister took a decision to move the Secretariat back to Fort St.George and ordered to stop all civil works in Block 'B'.
(xii) A Writ Petition was filed by a practicing Advocate Dr.G.Krishnamurthy as a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.12492 of 2011 on 15.5.2011 praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from re-shifting the Secretariat and the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from Omanthurar Government Estate to Fort St.George. The Hon'ble First Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ petition on merits on 15.6.2011 holding that it is for the Government to decide as to which building shall be comfortable for the purpose of establishing the State Secretariat and if the Government takes a policy decision to run the Secretariat from the old building, this Court cannot issue a direction to the Government to change their decision.
(xiii) Subsequently, another writ petition was field in W.P.No.19341 of 2011 as Public Interest Litigation and prayed for resuming the building maintenance and interior works and complete the construction of the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex at Omanthurar Government Estate. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu made a statement on the Floor of Legislative Assembly on 19.8.2011 under Rule 110 of the Assembly Rules that the new Secretariat complex will be converted as a Multi-Super Specialty Hospital-cum-Medical College. The writ petitioner made a representation on 22.8.2011 to the Government of Tamil Nadu to re-consider the policy decision to covert the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex as a Multi Super Specialty Hospital. This Court disposed of the writ petition in W.P.No.19314 of 2011 on 9.9.2011 and the said order reads as follows:
"5. As the relief in the writ petition is for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to resume building maintenance and interior works, continue the construction if any and complete the New Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex at Omanthurar Estate, comprised in Block 59, Triplicane Village and in S.No.3171/7, 3171/A, 3171/B for the purpose it was conceived, designed and built, in our opinion, such a positive direction cannot be issued except directing the respondents 1 to 3 to look into the representation made by the petitioner dated 22.08.2011, which has been received by the Government as stated in the letter dated 2.9.2011. The said letter of the Secretary, Public (Buildings) Department, dated 2.9.2011 is recorded and the writ petition is closed as no further adjudication is necessary, except directing that the representation of the petitioner dated 22.8.2011 should be looked into and appropriate decision could be taken at the earliest. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed. No costs."
(xiv) On 14.9.2011, G.O.Ms.No.846 Public (Buildings) Department was issued by the Government ordering alternate use of the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex constructed at Omanthurar Government Estate by establishing a Multi Super Speciality Hospital in Block 'A' and to start a new Government Medical College at Block 'B' and the Public Works Department was directed to take necessary steps to complete the left over works in these blocks, in consultation with the Health and Family Welfare Department. The said order is under challenge in the above writ petitions.
10. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.30326 of 2011 and 18404 of 2012 would vehemently contend and put forward the following contentions:
(1) The impugned decision taken by the Government not to use the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex is arbitrary, irrational and opposed to public interest. Therefore the decision of the Government is malice in law and subversive of rule of law.
(2) The decision taken by the present Government, namely, party in power during its earlier tenure between 2001 and 2006 to shift the Secretariat from Fort St.George on the ground that it was unfit for usage no longer, was faithfully implemented and executed by the subsequent Government during its tenure between 2006 and 2011 and hence the said decision is binding on the present Government, and any action taken contrary to that would be arbitrary and irrational.
(3) The decision of converting the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex, which was specifically designed and constructed for that purpose, into a Multi Super Specialty Hospital is the result of total non-application of mind and based on no material. The said decision is an unilateral decision, without getting opinion/report from the expert committee. Hence the said decision is not only arbitrary, but also opposed to environmental laws, governing the particular building.
In support of the above contentions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on various documents filed before this Court by way of typed set of papers. The learned senior Counsel placed specific reliance on the statement made by the present Chief Minister under Rule 110 of the Assembly Rules during her earlier tenure i.e, on 4.4.2003 on the floor of the house, disclosing the Government's proposals and actions with regard to shifting of the secretariat complex from Fort St.George to some other place.
11. The learned Senior Counsel specifically stressed that earlier the Government proposed to shift the Secretariat complex from the present Fort St.George to the space opposite to Fort St.George; and then to Lady Wellington College; Queen Mary's College; and ultimately to Anna University Campus, Kotturpuram. It is also contended that the present Government never thought of renovating the Fort St.George Complex during its earlier tenure. It is contended that four assembly sessions were held in the newly constructed Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex at Omanthurar Government Estate. It is pointed out that for construction of the said complex spreading over 9 lakhs sq.ft area, Rs.551 Crores has been spent, and the same is now lying waste and it is a clear case of arbitrary and irrational action taken against public interest. It is further submitted that the contention that the newly constructed secretariat complex is not upto the standard is an argument of convenience and at every stage, the Committee of experts inspected the building and the corrections pointed out were carried out and ultimately the then Government faithfully implemented the so called policy decision formulated by the present Government of shifting the Secretariat complex and reversal of the policy decision by the present Government is whimsical and based on no material.
12. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that undoing everything done by the earlier Government causes hardships to the citizens. It is also argued that the new Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex was designed and constructed only to suit for conducting assembly sessions and for functioning of all administrative offices of the Secretariat, and as such the said building is not suitable for accommodating the Multi Super Specialty Hospital. Ultimately the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Government has neither constituted any Expert Committee nor obtained any report before taking the decision of conversion of the New Secretariat complex into a Multi Super Specialty Hospital.
13. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions:
(1) (2002) 2 SCC 507 (State of Haryana v. State of Punjab) (2) (2011) 8 SCC 737 (State of Tamil Nadu v. K.Shyam Sunder) (3) (2011) 9 SCC 286 (Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation v. B.Narasimha Reddy) (4) 2012 (1) CTC 1 (V.Madhav v. Government of Tamil Nadu)
- Division Bench decision of this Court.
14. One S.A.Miyajan, who filed W.P.No.31313 of 2012 as party-in-person, relating to the same issue, reiterated the contentions put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in other writ petitions. He has also produced the Corporation sanctioned plan for construction of the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex and contended that the Corporation of Chennai sanctioned the plan only for the purpose of housing Secretariat and not for any other purpose. He has also contended that huge sums of public money were spent for constructing the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex and the present Government has simply taken a hasty decision and the said decision is mala fide. He has placed reliance on the following decisions:
(1) AIR 1990 SC 1277 (Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd v.
Union of India) (2) AIR 1955 SC 13 (Meenakshi Mills v. Viswanatha Sastri) (3) AIR 2006 SC 2571 (Inderpreeth Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab) (4) AIR 1991 SC 537 (Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P.) The petitioner also contended that the impugned order dated 28.2.2012 is a one line order and no reasons are assigned.
16. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner S.A.Miyajan stated that he earlier filed W.P.No.21040 of 2011 and prayed for a direction to the State to put the New Secretariat complex at Anna Salai to its earmarked usage of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, cancelling the proposal to use it as a Multi Specialty Hospital and the said writ petition was dismissed on 14.9.2011 and the review application filed against the same was also dismissed by this Court on 15.11.2011.
17. Mr.Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents would stoutly refuted the points raised by the petitioners as well as the contentions put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
(a) The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there are two parts of decision taken by the Government, first part being functioning of the Legislative Assembly from Fort St.George. On the basis of the said decision, the Governor of Tamil Nadu issued summons under Article 174 of the Constitution of India and even before the summon was issued, Dr.G.Krishnamurthy approached this Court by filing a writ petition on 14.5.2011 with a prayer to grant an injunction restraining the Government from shifting the Assembly from Omanthurar Government Estate to Fort St.George. The second part of the decision is that the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex should be converted into a Multi Super Specialty Hospital. While the second part is consequent upon the first decision, the first part is independent of the second part.
(b) The learned Senior Counsel heavily relied on the decision of the Honourable First Bench of this Court in the writ petition filed by a practising Advocate Dr.G.Krishnamurthy in W.P.No.12492 of 2011, which was disposed of on 15.6.2012. It is pointed out that at the time of filing writ petition No.30326 of 2011, summons have been issued by the Governor and the Governor of Tamil Nadu made special address as contemplated under Article 176 of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of the writ petition filed by Dr.G.Krishnamurthy, the present development took place and the Legislative Session was conducted at Fort St.George, the Governor's address was made, and motion of thanks was also passed. If the motion of thanks was approved in the assembly, then it is a valid decision taken by the Government. No party, including opposite parties, agitated in the Assembly when the first session was convened at Fort St.George, after the present Government assumed office. Therefore the first part of the decision viz., shifting of Assembly from Omanthurar Government Estate to Fort St.George stands concluded, more particularly when the decision of the Honourable First Bench in Dr.G.Krishnamurthy's case (cited supra) was not challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by preferring any appeal, which decision has become final and binding.
(c) The learned Senior Counsel placed heavy reliance on Article 174 of the Constitution of India and submitted that it is the decision as to where the Assembly/Legislators to sit and at such time and place has to be decided by the Governor by issuing summon under Article 174 of the Constitution of India. Once the summon is issued, then the Assembly/House is the Master of its proceedings. The Assembly is functioning well and so far 40 to 50 bills were passed and there is no allegation about non-functioning of the Assembly. Thus, the first part of the decision taken by the Government was concluded and the constitutional privilege alone was exercised.
(d) The second Part of the decision is to convert the newly constructed Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex into a Multi Super Specialty hospital. It is contended that the said decision cannot be stated to be unconstitutional as none of the Fundamental Rights of the citizen is infringed. People will not be affected based on the decision taken by the Government in the Assembly and the issue regarding where to sit, does not affect the citizen. On the contrary, if a Multi Super Specialty Hospital is not established in the vacant building, the public interest will suffer.
(e) In order to substantiate his contentions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:
(1) AIR 1965 SC 745 (In re, Under Art.143, Constitution of India) (2) (2007) 3 SCC 184 (Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others) (3) (2010) 6 SCC 113 (Amarinder Singh v.
Pubjab Vidhan Sabha) (4) (2010) 4 SCC 1 (Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India)
(f) Placing reliance on the above decisions, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that in the last 1= years, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly is functioning in Fort St.George and no complaint whatsoever is made about the functioning of Assembly session at Fort St.George and there is no prayer to shift the Assembly to Omanthurar Government Estate and there is no constitutional provision relied on to support the contentions raised by the petitioners. Article 174 does not require any reason to be stated by the State Governor. There is no violation of Article 14 as no fundamental right of the citizen is affected.
(g) The learned Senior Counsel emphatically contended that conversion of New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex into a Multi Super Specialty Hospital is not against the public interest and it is only to promote public interest. The learned Senior Counsel relied on Article 47 of the Constitution of India and contended that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.
(h) It is brought to the notice of this Court that this is the third time the Secretariat is shifted from Omanthurar Government Estate to Fort St.George from 1936 onwards. Therefore, shifting of the Secretariat and Assembly sessions are matters of choice of the Government, which cannot be questioned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(i) The learned Senior counsel would also submit that the Government has proposed to spend Rs.26.94 crores to change the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex as Multi Super Specialty hospital and an amount of Rs.28 crores for renovation of the buildings at Fort St.George. It is contended that while functioning of the Assembly is ensured, establishment of hospital in 'A' Block with minor changes shall also be carried out. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that public interest is not at all affected and the present writ petitions filed by way of PIL are nothing but politically motivated litigations.
(j) It is brought to the notice of this Court that Committees were constituted and opinions were obtained from Senior Doctors from the reputed hospitals like Apollo Hospital and other hospitals, who visited the spot and after inspection, submitted report and only thereafter the Government prepared the plan for conversion of the building and carried out other formalities like obtaining environmental and fire services clearance. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the decision of the Government is neither haste nor waste, but the decision taken is purely on public interest.
(k) The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no wastage of public money as the building is going to be utilized as Multi Super Specialty Hospital in 'Block A' by spending small amounts for conversion/alteration.
(l) Lastly it is contended that in Public Interest Litigations also Doctrine of res judicata applies. In these cases, as the first writ petition filed by Dr.G.Krishnamurthy on the very same issue, was decided by the Hon'ble First Bench on merits, the decision to shift the Secretariat complex has become final and subsequent filing of writ petitions questioning the very same policy decision on same and identical grounds are not maintainable and the doctrine of res judicata is applicable in such matters.
(m) The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the High Court will not sit in appeal over the Legislative Wisdom and if the decision is interfered, it will affect separation of powers and members of the Legislative Assembly may not be willing to sit at Omanthurar Government Estate and it is the choice of the Legislators to choose where to sit and it is for the Governor to notify the place and time of sittings.
(n) Insofar as 'Block B' is concerned, the Government has decided to construct the building and utilise it for bringing up a new Government Medical College and the said decision will also promote public interest.
(o) Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are not at all applicable for deciding the issues raised in these writ petitions. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that even though vague allegation of malice in law is alleged, there is no material placed to prove the malice in law. It is pointed out that news paper reports are secondary evidence and the writ petitions filed as PIL are not maintainable under Rule 6 of the High Court Rules as the petitioners have not verified the facts before filing these writ petitions, which are filed based on newspapers reports.
18. Mr.J.Ramesh, a practising Advocate, who filed the impleading petition in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.30326 of 2011, would contend that the doctrine of res judicata would squarely apply to the present writ petitions and prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions. It is also pointed out that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact of filing earlier writ petition by Dr.G.Krishnamurthy and the order passed in the said writ petition in respect of the same issue of shifting the Assembly building from Omanthurar Government Estate to Fort St.George.
19. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply submitted that Article 174 of the Constitution of India has no relevance in determining the sitting of the Assembly. It is contended that permanent sitting of the Assembly is totally outside the purview of Article 174 of the Constitution of India and this Article does not apply if the Assembly meets for the first time after the General Elections. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, in support of this contention, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Assembly Election Matter in RE, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 237, in a slightly different context in respect of the reliance placed under Article 174 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the respondents have not shown one good reason as to why the Government went back from the word given in the year 2005. Finally, it is contended that the arguments may be political and non-political depending upon the case and neither in the counter affidavit nor in the rejoinder, respondents stated that the present writ petitions are politically motivated writ petitions.
20. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners made his further submissions while the matters were again posted on 7.1.2013 at their instance for maintainability of M.P.SR.Nos.141185/2012 etc., and contended that these petitions are filed to reopen the case for constitution of expert committee to go into the comparative suitability of the New Assembly Buildings into Multi Super Specialty Hospital and submit a report, as the decision already taken was not based on any Expert Committee opinion. The learned Senior Counsel would place reliance on the decision reported in (2011) 8 SCC 737 (State of Tamil Nadu v. K.Shyam Sunder) (cited supra) in support of his contention relating to constitution of Expert Committee and based on the report to be submitted, this Court can decide the issues raised.
21. The said contention was stoutly opposed by Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General. It is contended that the present petitions to re-open the matter for constitution of Expert Committee are lacking bona fides. The learned Advocate General placed reliance on the earlier decision of the Honourable First Bench in W.P.No.12492 of 2011 dated 15.6.2011 and submitted that the said decision is complete answer for the entire issue raised in these writ petitions and the intention of the petitioners is only to drag on the proceedings. It is contended that the present petitions are filed only with a view to protract the decision to be taken by this Court.
22. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side, perused the affidavits filed by the petitioners; counter affidavits filed by the respective respondents; rejoinder and the affidavit filed by the Party-In-Person; and the order of this Court in W.P.No.12492 of 2011 dated 15.6.2011, order made in W.P.No.21040 of 2011 dated 14.9.2011, the order passed in Review Application No.149 of 2011 dated 15.11.2011, including the impugned G.O.Ms.No.846 Public (Buildings) Department, dated 14.9.2011.
23. The facts in these cases are not in dispute. Two issues are raised by the petitioners, namely,
(i) Shifting Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex from Omanthurar Government Estate to Fort St.George, and
(ii) Consequential utilization of the said building at Omanthurar Government Estate as a Multi Super Specialty Hospital (A Block) and establishment of Government Medical College at 'B Block'.
24. The first issue regarding shifting of the New Legislative Assembly-Cum-Secretariat Complex from Omanthurar Government Estate to Fort St.George was already questioned by a practicing Advocate of this Court, Dr.G.Krishnamurthy, in W.P.No.12492 of 2011 by raising similar contentions, particularly the decision of the Government was challenged as illegal, arbitrary, unauthorized, opposed to public interest, unmindful of huge expenditure already spent, huge money spent cannot be allowed to go waste on the whims and fancies and by spending further amounts for renovation of Fort St.George Assembly complex will affect public interest, as already there is a financial crunch. Almost the same contentions are raised in the present writ petitions. The Hon'ble First Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Y.Eqbal (as he then was) and Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam in the decision reported in 2011 (4) CTC 113 [Dr.G.Krishnamurthy v. The Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu] dealt with the issue elaborately and by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as hereunder:
"7. It is well settled that Public Interest Litigation is not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial, economic or other decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No. doubt, a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a Court of law, but a Public Interest Litigation for such cause cannot be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden. It has also been settled by the Apex Court that the forum of Public Interest Litigation is not meant for serving political purpose or solving political problem; political problem ought to be solved through political process, and not through judicial process. The Concept of Public Interest Litigation is evolved for the purpose of safeguarding the interest and welfare of the poor people who are in a disadvantaged position and not to decide the propriety of the policy decision of the Government.
8. De Smith, in his book "Judicial Review", on the question of limitation of Courts in the matter of policy decisions, observed thus:
Asserting the Constitutional capacity of the Courts in these situations does not, however, mean that the Courts should not recognize both their own Constitutional and relative institutional limitations. As we have already discussed in relation to the question of 'justifiability', decisions involving 'policy' - the utilitarian calculation of the public good-such as decisions about the levels of taxation or public expenditure are, Constitutionally, in the realm of the legislature. In respect of other decisions, the relative institutional capacity of Courts and the legislature, executive and other bodies will be relevant to the extent and degree of judicial intervention. Decisions that are polycentric, involving the allocation of scarce resources (for example, whether a hospital should provide very expensive treatments) are similarly not normally suited to decisions by Courts. Decisions taken by experts, and those best able to calculate risk, indicate some measure of institutional respect.
The author further says as follows:
Substantive review in English law has been dominated by the Concept of Unreasonableness closely identified with the famous formulation by Lord Greene, M.R. in the Waynesburg case, that the Courts can only interfere if a decision 'is so unreasonable that No. reasonable authority could ever come to it'. That formulation attempts, albeit imperfectly, to convey the point that Judges should not lightly interfere with official decisions on this ground, In exercising their powers of review, Judges ought not to imagine themselves as being in the position of the Competent Authority when the decision was taken and then test the reasonableness of the decision against the decision they would have taken. To do that would involve the Courts in a review of the merits of the decision, as if they were themselves the recipients of the power. For that reason, Lord Greene in Waynesburg thought that an unreasonable decision under his definition 'would require something overwhelming' (such as a teacher being dismissed on the ground of her red hair).
9. In the case of Union of India v. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta and Kannadigara and Ors. 2002 (10) SCC 226, a decision of the Central Government to locate the Head Quarters of the South Western Railway at Hubli, instead of Bangalore, was challenged before the Karnataka High Court on the ground that once the Railways has decided to establish the Head Quarters at Bangalore and spent public fund in putting up a part of the establishment, the subsequent decision of shifting the Head Quarters to Hubli was bad in law. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition holding that the decision was vitiated on account of legal mala fide as the Appellant has decided to shift the Zonal Office from Bangalore to Hubli without any change in the policy decision. The matter came to the Supreme Court. Their lordships, while setting aside the decision of the High Court, held as under:
5. We do not find any basis for the High Court coming to the conclusion that the decision of the Union Cabinet was vitiated on account of legal mala fides. Merely because an administrative decision has been taken to locate the headquarters at Bangalore, which decision is subsequently altered by the same authority, namely, the Union Cabinet, cannot lead one to the conclusion that there has been legal mala fides. Why the headquarters should be at Hubli and not at Bangalore, is not for the Court to decide. There are various factors which have to be taken into consideration when a decision like this has to be arrived at. Assuming that the decision so taken is a political one, it cannot possibly give rise to a challenge on the ground of legal mala fides. A political decision, if taken by a Competent Authority in accordance with law, cannot per se be regarded as mala fide. In any case, there is nothing on the record to show that the present decision was motivated by political consideration. The observation of the High Court that there has been a change in the decision because there was a change of the Governments and a different political party had come into power, is not supported by any basis. That the Court will not interfere in questions of policy decision is clearly brought out by the following passage from a decision of this Court in Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India 1996 (2) SCC 405, when at p.413, it was observed as follows: (SCC p.413, para 7):
7. What has been said in respect of legislations is applicable even in respect of policies which have been adopted by Parliament. They cannot be tested in Court of law. The Courts cannot express their opinion as to whether at a particular juncture or under a particular situation prevailing in the country any such national policy should have been adopted or not. There may be views and views, opinions and opinions which may he shared and believed by citizens of the country including the representatives of the people in Parliament. But that has to be sorted out in Parliament which has to approve such policies. Privatization is a fundamental concept underlying the questions about the power to make economic decisions. What should be the role of the State in the economic development of the nation ? How the resources of the country shall be used ? How the goals fixed shall be attained ? What are to be the safeguards to prevent the abuse of the economic power ? What is the mechanism of accountability to ensure that the decision regarding privatization is in public interest ? All these questions have to be answered by a vigilant Parliament. Courts have their limitations - because these issues rest with the policy-makers for the nation. No. direction can be given or is expected from the courts unless while implementing such policies, there is violation or infringement of any of the Constitutional or statutory provision. The new Telecom policy was placed before Parliament and it shall be deemed that Parliament has approved the same. This Court cannot review and examine as to whether the said policy should have been adopted. of course, whether there is any legal or Constitutional bar in adopting such policy can certainly be examined by the Court.
10. In the instant case also, in our view, it is for the Government to decide as to which building shall be comfortable for the purpose of establishing the State Secretariat. If the Government takes a policy decision to run the Secretariat from the old building, this Court cannot issue a direction to the Government to change their decision.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed."
The said decision was not challenged either by the petitioner Dr.G.Krishnamurthy by filing SLP before the Supreme Court or by any other person, and as such the said decision has reached finality.
25. Considering the said decision, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents is justified in raising the contention that the said issue cannot be re-agitated again, as finality of judicial proceeding in the above issue has already reached. At this juncture it is relevant to note that finality of court proceeding is a well recognised principle of law. In this regard, the following decisions can be usefully referred in this regard.
(a) In (2011) 2 SCC 706 (Joydeep Mukharjee v. State of West Bengal) in paragraphs 16 to 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus, "16. The jurisdiction of this Court, in a public interest litigation, cannot be pressed into service where the matters have already been completely and effectively adjudicated upon not only in the individual petitions but even in the writ petitions raising larger question as was raised in Writ Petition No. 216 of 1999 before this Court.
17. Another important aspect of this case which has persuaded us not to interfere with settled rights and grant the prayers in this public interest litigation is that an affidavit on behalf of the State of West Bengal has been filed recently on 3-12-2010 revealing certain pertinent facts for proper adjudication of this case. The affidavit, sworn by Mr Abanindranath Palodhi, Joint Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal, has stated that guidelines for allotment of both individual and cooperative residential plots in Salt Lake City were issued by a Government Order on 7-12-1999 on the strength of the Cabinet decision taken on 10-11-1999. The then Chief Minister, late Mr.Jyoti Basu, had already allotted 276 plots out of 290 plots from his discretionary quota which were available at that point of time and presently only 14 plots are left in that discretionary quota.
18. This affidavit further states as under:
Subsequently, on 7-12-1999 four orders were issued with regard to allotment of residential plots, non-residential plots for educational institutions and for allotment of plots for cultural, institutional, industrial, commercial, etc. purposes at Salt Lake. All these notifications required advertisement in newspapers and invitation of application. But what is significant is that no guidelines had in fact been framed for allotment of plots from the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister, as a result of which all the 14 plots belonging to the discretionary quota, which were in existence in February 1999, still continue to remain unallotted. As a result, these 14 plots will no more be treated as part of the discretionary quota. (emphasis supplied by us)
19. From the above specific averments made in the affidavit, it is clear that there are very few plots presently left for allotment under the discretionary quota. The State Government has taken a conscious decision not to make further allotments under the discretionary quota even qua those plots. As far as already allotted plots are concerned, the rights of the parties appear to have been settled and attained finality, as in none of the writ petitions/appeals referred above any of these allotments was set aside by the courts of competent jurisdiction. The petitioners in those cases, in fact, did not even care to take further proceedings to have the matters adjudicated before the higher courts and in accordance with law. In these circumstances it will be a futile exercise of jurisdiction of this Court to reopen the whole controversy once again." (Emphasis Supplied)
(b) In the decision reported in (2011) 3 SCC 408 (M.Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka) in paragraphs 12 and 13 it is held thus, "12. The principles of res judicata are of universal application as they are based on two age-old principles, namely, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation and the other principle is nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eademn causa meaning thereby that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the court that it is for one and the same cause. This doctrine of res judicata is common to all civilised system of jurisprudence to the extent that a judgment after a proper trial by a court of competent jurisdiction should be regarded as final and conclusive determination of the questions litigated and should for ever set the controversy at rest.
13. That principle of finality of litigation is based on high principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law inasmuch as there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious litigant will succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right. The doctrine of res judicata has been evolved to prevent such an anarchy. That is why it is perceived that the plea of res judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains the rule of law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks to promote honesty and a fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties."
Further, in paragraphs 21 and 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus, "21. Following all these principles a Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra ((1990) 2 SCC 715) laid down the following principle: (SCC p. 741, para 35) 35. an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had decided as incidental to or essentially connected with subject-matter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence. Thus, the principle of constructive res judicata underlying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applied to writ case. We, accordingly hold that the writ case is fit to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata.
22. In view of such authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of this Court, there can be no doubt that the principles of constructive res judicata, as explained in Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC, are also applicable to writ petitions." (Emphasis Supplied) In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed its earlier Constitutional Bench decision reported in AIR 1965 SC 1150 (Devilal Modi v. STO); (1977) 2 SCC 806 (State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain); (1990) 2 SCC 715 (Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra); and (1998) 3 SCC 573 (K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi).
(c) In AIR 1988 SC 1681 : (1988) 4 SCC 364 (J.R.Raghupathy v. State of A.P.), the discretion of the Government in locating the headquarters of a District/Mandal was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In paragraph 31, the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashing the location of Mandal/District Headquarters was set aside. In paragraphs 31 and 32 (in SCC) the Supreme Court held as follows:
"31. We find it rather difficult to sustain the judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it has interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the Gram Panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place X rather than place Y as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners.
32. The result therefore is that Civil Appeals Nos. 1980, 1982, 1985 and 1987 of 1986 and all other appeals and special leave petitions directed against the judgment of the High Court where it has interfered with the location of the Mandal Headquarters, must succeed and are allowed. The petitions filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court are accordingly dismissed."
(d) In the decision reported in (2003) 4 SCC 289 (Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India) creation of new railway zone was questioned and the Supreme Court upheld the policy decision taken by the Government.
26. Applying the principles laid down in the above said decisions to the facts of these cases, we are of the considered view that the issue raised by the petitioners regarding shifting of Secretariat from Omanthurar Government Estate to Fort St.George is no longer res integra.
27. At this juncture we are also constrained to place on record that unfortunately the petitioner has not whispered a word about filing of earlier writ petition by Dr.G.Krishnamurthy, a practising Advocate as well as the decision rendered by the First Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (4) CTC 113 (cited supra), which has become final in respect of the very same issue involved in these writ petitions. It is also relevant to note that at present Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and Secretariat is functioning at Fort St.George for the past over 1= years and the policy decision of the present Government was also stated in the Governor's Address, which was also adopted by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, without any opposition. The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly having adopted the policy decision of the present Government to shift the Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex from Omanthurar Government Estate to Fort St. George, the same cannot be questioned before this Court as no constitutional violation is raised or established in these cases.
28. Even assuming that the petitioner has any right to file these writ petitions, it is well settled proposition of law that earlier decisions cannot be questioned before this Court, more particularly when this Court already held in writ petition filed by Dr.G.Krishnamurthy to the effect that there is no arbitrariness in the decision making process of shifting of Secretariat complex from Omanthurar Government Estate to Fort St.George. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents heavily placed reliance on Article 174 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:
"174. Sessions of the State Legislature, prorogation and dissolution.-
(1) The Governor shall from time to time summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session.
(2) The Governor may from time to time -
(a) prorogue the House or either House;
(b) dissolve the Legislative Assembly."
On perusal of the above Article, it is evident that the Governor shall, from time to time summon the House to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit. The said Article nowhere states that the same will apply only for first sitting as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The words used are 'from time to time' and 'to meet at such time and place'. Therefore the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents is fully justified.
29. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contended that exercise of constitutional privilege by the House could be questioned on the ground of breach of constitution and the Courts can determine whether a particular claimed privilege exists or not. The exercise of the privilege is subject to a limited judicial review on the ground of unconstitutionality and illegality alone, where the exercise of privilege adversely affects the rights of some individual. In support of such contention, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:
(i) In (2007) 3 SCC 184 (Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha) the majority judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the privileges of the parliament in taking action against the erring members and held that only on limited grounds the expulsion can be questioned before the Court of Law, i.e, if the protection given under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to any member or non-member is affected, or if the decision is vitiated by any illegality or unconstitutionality. In paragraph 431, when the Court can scrutinize the decision are summarised and in clause (p) and (q), the Supreme Court held as follows:
"(p) Ordinarily, the legislature, as a body, cannot be accused of having acted for an extraneous purpose or being actuated by caprice or mala fide intention, and the court will not lightly presume abuse or misuse, giving allowance for the fact that the legislature is the best judge of such matters, but if in a given case, the allegations to such effect are made, the court may examine the validity of the said contention, the onus on the person alleging being extremely heavy;
(q) The rules which the legislature has to make for regulating its procedure and the conduct of its business have to be subject to the provisions of the Constitution."
(ii) (2010) 6 SCC 113 (Amarinder Singh v. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha) the power of the State Legislature, privilege and immunities conferred under Article 194 of the Constitution of India, which are akin to those conferred on Union Parliament by Article 105 came up for consideration. The expulsion of the former Chief Minister of Punjab from the State Legislature was interfered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and his membership was restored as it affected the individual right of the member concerned. In the said case it was held that the executive acts of member, committed during previous term of house will not survive, once the house was dissolved and thereafter reconstituted.
(iii) (2010) 4 SCC 1 (Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India) the Supreme Court held that parliamentary proceedings can be judicially reviewed on illegality and not on irregularity. In paragraph 36 the Supreme Court held thus, "36. This Court Under Article 143, Constitution of India, In re (Special Reference No. 1 of 1964) (also known as Keshav Singh case (AIR 1965 SC 745)) while construing Article 212(1) observed that it may be possible for a citizen to call in question in the appropriate court of law, the validity of any proceedings inside the legislature if his case is that the said proceedings suffer not from mere irregularity of procedure, but from an illegality. If the impugned procedure is illegal and unconstitutional, it would be open to be scrutinised in a court of law, though such scrutiny is prohibited if the complaint against the procedure is no more than this that the procedure was irregular. The same principle would equally be applicable in the matter of interpretation of Article 122 of the Constitution."
30. The decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners were rendered on the following circumstances.
(a) In (2002) 2 SCC 507 (State of Haryana v. State of Punjab) the issue was relating to sharing of waters from the Ravi-Beas project between States of Punjab and Haryana and the decision taken by the subsequent Government affected the neighbouring States's right. Hence the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the succeeding Government is duty bound to continue and carry out the unfinished job rather than stopping the same.
(b) (2011) 8 SCC 737 (State of Tamil Nadu v. K.Shyam Sunder) is in respect of implementation of uniform system of school education in the State of Tamil Nadu pursuant to a legislation viz., Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010, which was already upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was ordered to be kept in abeyance by the subsequent State Government and revive the old system. In such circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Government cannot nullify the effect of the judgment by delaying the commencement of 2010 Act.
(c) The decision reported in (2011) 9 SCC 286 (Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation v. B.Narasimha Reddy) is relating to statutory interference with composition of Co-operative Societies, which was violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(c) and (4) of the Constitution of India in the challenge made with regard to Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-Operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2006. In this case, no fundamental right of the petitioner or any member of the public is interfered with by the impugned decision.
31. The decisions cited by the petitioner in W.P.No.31313 of 2012, who appeared as party-in-person, were rendered on the basis of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
32. From the above cited decisions it is evident that the decision to convene the sitting of the Legislative Assembly and the Secretariat is purely a matter of internal procedure adopted by the Legislature and this Court is not entitled to interfere in the said decision, particularly when no violation of any constitutional provision is attracted.
33. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the first issue is decided against the petitioners and we uphold the decision of the Government of shifting of the new Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex from Omanthurar Government Estate to Fort St. George.
34. The second issue is in relation to the conversion of the newly constructed Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex (A Block) at Omanthurar Government Estate as a Multi Super Specialty Hospital.
35. Before proceeding to consider this issue, it is pertinent to point out that the construction of New Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex buildings is not completed. The fact remains even as per the admitted version of the petitioners, only 'A Block' is completed and Assembly Hall space alone is utilised for some time before the 14th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Election. It is not disputed by the petitioners that the remaining construction was in progress at the time of taking policy decision by the present Government to convert the newly constructed Assembly/Secretariat complex 'A Block' into one of Multi Super Specialty Hospital. It is also specifically stated by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the Advisory Departments like Finance, Law, Personnel and Administrative Reforms are continue to function in Fort St.George even after shifting some departments and only six out of 35 departments were shifted to Omanthurar Government Estate. It is also stated that functioning of the key departments like Home, Public in a separate building was against the settled principle of co-ordination of logistics of Government and the incomplete structure and ongoing civil works also posed safety and security concerns.
36. As we have upheld the decision of the Government to shift the Secretariat and Assembly Complex to Fort St.George, what remains to be seen is how to utilize the newly constructed building at Omanthurar Government Estate, keeping in mind the paramount consideration of the welfare and interest of the public.
37. The Government in its wisdom thought fit to establish a Multi Super Specialty Hospital-cum-Medical College at Omanthurar Government Estate and the said decision was taken through the impugned G.O.Ms.No.846 Public (Buildings) Department, dated 14.9.2011. The extra cost for conversion is stated to be Rs.26.92 crores, which according to the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents is only meagre sum and there is absolutely no wastage of any space or expenditure already incurred of about Rs.551 crores. The decision to establish a Multi Super Specialty Hospital was also announced in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, which also approved the said decision. It is pertinent to note that the decision of conversion of Assembly/Secretariat complex into one of a Multi Super Specialty Hospital was taken as a policy decision. For implementing the said policy decision an Expert Committee was constituted consisting of Experts from various fields like Doctors from the specialised hospitals, Administrators of various private and public hospitals in Chennai, Architectural wing of PWD by G.O.Ms.No.301 Health and Family Welfare (E1) Department, dated 25.11.2011. The team of Doctors and Architectures visited some of the best known institutes like All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi; Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh; and Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Science at Puttaparthi to adopt the design of the present building to modern standards of Super Specialty Hospital and the said facts are stated in the rejoinder to reply affidavit filed by the respondent on 16.4.2012.
38. The High Level Committee consist of the following Committee Members:
1. Ms.Preetha Reddy, MD, Apollo Hospitals
2. Dr.Cherian, Chairman, Frontier Lifeline Hospital
3. Dr.V.Shantha, Chairperson, Cancer Institute, Adyar, Chennai.
4. Dr.K.Vanitha and Dr.Malathi, BIR, MMC, Chennai
5. Dr.Rajaraman, HOD, Surgical Oncology, KMC, Chennai.
6. Dr.C.R.Ravi, HOD, Medical Oncology, MMC, Chennai.
7. Dr.V.Natarajan (Retd), Institute of Neurology, MMC, Chennai.
8. Dr.V.Sundar, HOD, Institute of Neurology, MMC, Chennai.
9. Dr.K.Sridhar, Member SPC and Plastic Surgeon
10. Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgeon
11. Dr.Vidyasagaran, HOD, Vascular Surgeon
12. Dr.C.Chandramohan, HOD, Surgical Gastroenterology, MMC
13. Dr.Gunaseelan Rajan, Director, Rajan Dental Institute
14. Dr.R.Raveendran, Managing Trustee, Udhi Eye Hospital
15. Dr.N.Gopalakrishnan, Professor Nephrology Department, MMC
16. Dr.R.Jayaraman, HOD, Urology Department, MMC
17. Dr.V.Jayanthi, Med GE, Global Hospital The suggestions given by the Committee Members were discussed and the High Level Committee submitted its report, which was prepared in the meeting held on 17.12.2011. After deliberations, the Committee took the following decisions:
"(1) The floor design given by Apollo Hospital, which placed the outpatient, inpatient, ward and theatre for each department on the same floor was discussed. The PWD expressed that this option may not be advisable. The experts also felt that placing the inpatient and outpatient services together would make infection control more difficult. Hence it was decided to retain the floor space allocation as already discussed with outpatient services on the ground and first floor, diagnostic services on the second floor and the remaining floors forming the wards and theatres (on the 5th and 6th floor).
(2) It was also recorded that this hospital would receive patients for outpatient care directly or through referral for the specialists. The inpatient care would be largely by referral only. Hence the hospital would be complementary to the existing government hospitals rather than competing with them.
(3) It was decided that this particular hospital should be different from other government hospitals which could ultimately pave the way for medical tourism also. The proposed cardiology department may be housed in a single floor with all the related services. That there should be a good coordination unit for cadaver transplantations including preservation unit, either in this hospital or in the existing set up in General Hospital or Stanley Hospital. High cost technological solutions like robotic surgery need not be implemented at this stage and preference may be given to giving good quality basic services to more number of patients. At least 100 beds should be allotted for cardiac and cardio thoracic care.
(4) It was decided that vascular surgery was becoming an important specialty on its own in view of the growing importance of vascular problems in diabetes patients. Hence a separate section with 30 beds may be allotted for vascular surgery.
(5) The decision whether to include cancer care was analysed in view of the suggestion by Dr.Shanta and some of the expert members that all the three oncology sub specialists for oncology: medical, surgical and radiation should be together. While the allotted 60 beds would be enough for medical and surgical oncology, the present campus requires a special building to house the radiation oncology equipments. This building will cost about Rs.5 crores which will have special walls to accommodate the equipment and get Atomic Energy Regulatory Board clearance. However it was strongly voiced by some of the specialists that given the growing prevalence of cancer in the communities, any super specialty hospital should have cancer care.
(6) It was decided to allot 30 beds for hand and reconstructive surgery.
(7) It was decided to allot 60 beds to Neurology and Neurosurgery. The beds in Neurology ICU may concentrate their efforts on developing the neurology ICU which would be used by all other teaching hospitals.
It was agreed that the hospital may have 400 beds in the following specialties with the bed strength as indicated below:
1. Cardiology and Cardiothoracic 100+20 (ICU)
2. Neurology and Neuro Surgery 60
3. Hand & reconstructive Microsurgery 30
4. Oncology 100
5. Vascular Surgery 30
6. Post Operative Care & ICU 60
----400
----
It was also agreed to form,
(i) Sub-Committee for each specialty after discussion with the members (Action-Nodal Officer)
(ii) An administrative committee guided by Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare consisting of hospital administrators (Action Nodal Officer)
(iii) Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary for getting Financial clearances and monitoring progress (Action -E Section, H&FW Department) The following time line was also fixed for the action plan.
1. Constitution of sub-committees 20.12.2011
2. Report of sub-committees for finalising equipments End of Dec'2011
3. Getting sanction of funds Mid January 2012
4. Floating and opening of Tenders for equipments Mid February 2012
5. Report of Sub-Committee on Administrative procedure End January 2012
6. Finalisation of manpower and support services 1st week of March 2012
7. Placement of staff and support services Mid March 2012 The Chief Engineer (Buildings) was asked to send proposal for civil works immediately to Government for sanction of funds (Action-Chief Engineer (Buildings), PWD).
Concluding the meeting, it was agreed that other innovative ideas and suggestions may be considered in the B-Block which is meant for post graduation education and research."
The said decisions were approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1172 Health and Family Welfare (E1) Department, dated 20.12.2011 and a Monitoring Committee was constituted. In G.O.Ms.No.91 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 6.3.2012 the modifications were approved and financial sanction was ordered and budgetary allocation was also made in the Budget (Finance Bill) passed for the year 2011-2012.
39. It is also stated therein that the plan can be varied according to the local requirements and needs. The needs of the patients, medical personnel, paramedics and visitors have been taken care of while proposing the modifications to the building, for which the Government have given administrative sanction. The modified design takes into account the requirements of sterility, which will help to minimise infection in the operation theatres, post operative wards, intensive care units, etc. The additional needs for patient amenities such as lifts, toilets, etc., as well as administrative requirements such as nursing stations will also be provided as part of the modifications to the existing buildings.
40. The materials placed before this Court by the respondents reveal that specialised Doctors and Experts from the reputed Apollo Hospital and other leading Hospitals were members of the Expert Committee, who visited the building at Omanthurar Government Estate along with other technical experts including Architects, and only based on their opinion further steps have been taken by the respondents for converting 'A Block' of the newly constructed Assembly/Secretariat Complex at Omanthurar Government Estate into a Multi Super Specialty Hospital. The said decision of the Government is perfectly legal and valid.
41. At this juncture it is relevant to point out that getting treatment by poor patients in private hospitals is almost impossible. A patient belonging to poor family is unable to get treatment in private hospitals for serious diseases. Even the patients belonging to middle class families, if they take treatment in Corporate Hospitals, they have to spend their life long earnings for a single surgery/transplantation, etc. In some families, old and sick persons are not given treatment by relatives as they have no money and patients are taken to home for that reason. The said facts reveal violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, even after 65 years of our independence. These are the ground realities, which no one, including the petitioners can dispute. The allegation that the Government is spending about Rs.26.90 crores for altering the internal structure in 'A' Block cannot be a reason to set aside the order as spending money for promotion of health and education is the duty of the welfare state and the same cannot be termed as wasteful expenditure.
42. As experts views were already examined and considered before implementing the decision, we are of the considered view that the question of re-opening the case for appointment of an Expert Committee as prayed in MP.SR.Nos.141185 and 144183 of 2012 in W.P.No.30326 of 2011 and MP.SR.Nos.141156 and 144182 of 2012 in W.P.No.18404 of 2012, not at all arises as the Experts in that field have already made inspection and only based on their report policy decision is going to be implemented by modifying the building/structure internally.
43. The decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners reported in (2011) 8 SCC 737 (State of Tamil Nadu v. K.Shyam Sunder) is in respect of framing syllabus/curriculum for school students and for arriving at a decision regarding implementation of Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010. In that case Expert Committee's opinion was very much necessary and therefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of this Court in appointing an Expert Committee with slight modification and this Court was directed to decide the validity of the action of the Government taking into consideration the report to be submitted by the Expert Committee.
44. As already stated, in this case the Expert Committee submitted its report on 17.12.2011, which was also approved by the High Level Committee and monitored by the Monitoring Committee, while making necessary changes in the buildings. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is not justified in relying upon the above cited decision to the facts of this case.
45. Yet another factor to be borne-in-mind is that the respondents have already obtained environmental clearance for conversion of New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex into a Multi Super Specialty Hospital as per the clearance dated 16.05.2012 and No Objection Certificate dated 21.03.2012 was also obtained from the Fire and Rescue Services Department for conversion of Multi Super Specialty Hospital. An application dated 17.02.2012 was also made to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to obtain fresh consent to establish Multi Super Specialty Hospital. An application dated 02.02.2012 was made to CMDA to obtain fresh planning clearance for the conversion of Multi Super Specialty Hospital.
46. At this stage it is pertinent to state that as far as the issue of granting environmental clearance for the purpose of conversion into Multi Super Specialty Hospital, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the National Green Tribunal for its decision. Therefore, we cannot go into that aspect in this order. It is also to be stated that it is the specific stand of the respondents that as per the rejoinder to the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners to the effect that present endeavour of the Government is not to venture in making any new construction activity, but the effort is only to have modification of the existing super structure in respect of 'A' Block and continue further construction in respect of 'B' Block for establishment of a Government Medical College.
47. In view of the aforesaid factors, we are of the considered view that the decision of the Government cannot be stated to be arbitrary or hasty one, without any material available on record. It is also to be borne-in-mind that if a Multi Super Specialty Hospital is established, it will serve the public and will promote public interest as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. Existence of other hospitals like Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Stanley Hospital, Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, etc., and other private Hospitals, for the population of Chennai City of about one crore is not sufficient for the purpose of getting specialized treatment by the poor, middle class and down trodden people. Hence there is no substance in the contention that conversion of 'A' Block of New Secretariat Complex at Omanthurar Government Estate into a Multi Super Specialty Hospital is a waste. The fact remains that as on date, there is no Government Hospital available in Chennai city, which can be equated with AIIMS, New Delhi. The Government should keep it in mind that establishment of Multi Super Specialty Hospital should also serve the poor, middle class and down trodden people, who are not able to get specialized treatment for serious ailments such as heart, kidney, liver, etc., and for transplantation of vital organs, for which patients have to incur heavy expenditure, which the poor, middle class and downtrodden people cannot afford to spend. Thus, the proposed decision to convert 'A' block building in the Omanthurar Government Estate into a Multi Super Specialty Hospital is per se in the interest of Public. Moreover, the Government has taken policy decision to have a Multi Super Specialty Hospital at Omanthurar Government Estate, which was also approved by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, which cannot be interfered by this Court in view of the decisions cited supra.
48. As it is rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, the policy decision of the Government cannot be stated to be haste or waste. The said decision also cannot be stated to be arbitrary, whimsical and on the contrary, the said policy would promote and protect the interest of the public at large, more particularly, weaker sections of the society for getting better and expert treatment for serious ailments. It is made clear that the Government shall take all necessary steps for giving treatment to the poor and deserving people, free of cost.
49. It is also to be noted here that the petitioner in W.P.No.31313 of 2012 earlier filed W.P.No.21040 of 2011 and prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus to direct the State Government to put the New Secretariat Complex situated at Anna Salai to its earmarked usage of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly by cancelling the proposal to use it as a Multi Specialty Hospital. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr.Justice D.Murugesan (as he then was) and Mr.Justice K.K.Sasidharan by order dated 14.9.2011 holding that 'the petitioner has no material to show on what basis the existing complex cannot be put in use for Multi Specialty Hospital and as to how much of amount that is to be spent further by the Government while converting the same'. It is also held that 'it is not for the Court to direct the Government to put a particular building for use of particular purpose as it concerns with the decision of the Government.' Ultimately the said writ petition was dismissed. The said petitioner having not satisfied with the said order, filed review application in Rev.Appl.No.149 of 2011, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 15.11.2011. Thus, it is evident that the Division Bench of this Court has already rejected the request seeking direction to the Government to put the New Secretariat Complex situated at Anna Salai (Omanthurar Government Estate) to its earmarked usage of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and also upheld the proposal of the Government to use it as a Multi Specialty Hospital and we are in agreement with the said decision by upholding the proposal of the Government to convert the New Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex as a Multi Super Specialty Hospital.
50. In fine, we find no merits in these writ petitions and consequently, all these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions and M.P.SRs. are also dismissed.
Index : Yes/No. [K.N.B. J.,] [N.P.V. J.] Internet : Yes/No. 24-1-2013 vr/jvm To 1. The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Secretary, Public Works Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 3. The Chief Engineer (Buildings), Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 4. The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 5. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, Public (Buildings) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. K.N.BASHA, J., and N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. vr/jvm Pre-Delivery Common Order in W.P.Nos.30326 of 2011, 18404/2012 & 31313/2012 and Connected MPs and MP.SRs 24-1-2013