Madras High Court
S.Adhithian vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 24 September, 2018
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.09.2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD WP.No.2039 of 2018 and WMP Nos.2549 & 2550 of 2018 S.Adhithian ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Project Director, Tamilnadu Road Sector Project-II, TNHB Building, 1st Floor, No.171, South Kesavaperumal Puram, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028. 3. The Superintending Engineer (H), Tamilnadu Road Sector Project-II, TNHB Building, 1st Floor, No.171, South Kesavaperumal Puram, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028. 4. The Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition, Tamilnadu Road Development Plan-2, Highway City, Salem - 636 001. 5. The Special Divisional Engineer, Tamilnadu Road Development Plan-2, Highway Nagar, Salem - 636 001. 6. The Divisional Engineer, Tamilnadu Road Development Plan-2, J.K.Tower, Park Road, Binny Compound, Tiruppur - 641 601. 7. The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Collectorate, Cottom Market Building, Tiruppur - 641 604. ... Respondents WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to conduct comprehensive field studies, public hearing and cost benefit analysis, through reputed experts from Road Transport and Finance fields, regarding the proposal for the construction of a 935 M long, 15.50M, wide flyover on Oddanchathram to Avinashipalayam State Highway (SH-37) under the Tamilnadu Road Sector Project-II including alternative solutions, if any, and to accordingly modify / abandon the proposal for the construction of flyover at the proposed site on larger public interest. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vasanthakumar For Respondents : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan Government Pleader ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J) Claiming himself to be a social worker and political activist, working in Dharapuram area, petitioner has sought for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to conduct comprehensive field studies, public hearing and cost benefit analysis, through reputed experts from Road Transport and Finance fields, regarding the proposal for construction of a 935 M long, 15.50M, wide flyover on Oddanchathram to Avinashipalayam State Highway (SH-37) under the Tamilnadu Road Sector Project-II including alternative solutions, if any, and to accordingly modify / abandon the proposal for the construction of flyover at the proposed site in larger public interest.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
(i) Petitioner states that though the plan of the Tamilnadu Government to extend the State Highway-37 from Oddanchatram (Dindigul District) to Avinashipalayam (Tiruppur District) into a four lane track road under Tamilnadu Road Development Scheme-II, with loan from World Bank, is beneficial to the public, the proposed width and breadth of the proposed flyover of 935M and 15.50M shall cause reduction of the width of the service roads on either side of the flyover to less than 5.5M and thereby would create constant traffic problems along the above service roads leading to and from the Dharapuram Bus stand and Town area.
(ii) Petitioner further states that through the above service roads, hundreds of buses to the South and South East districts have to pass and it may cause serious traffic blocks whenever any one of the vehicles breaks down or parks on the service roads. It is the submission of the petitioner that instead of the flyover, continuing the 4 lane road all along may help to achieve better smooth flow of vehicles with lack chances of road accidents.
(iii) Petitioner further states that trucks carrying wind mills of length upto 100M, fitted with wind mill parts shall have to ply along the narrow service lanes and the construction of the proposed flyover shall certainly interfere with running of such transport vehicles. The proposed flyover is likely to benefit only cars proceeding to the southern districts whereas 90% of the lengthy trucks proceeding towards Pollachi will have to travel through the service roads of 5.50 M width.
(iv) Petitioner has further stated that hundreds of buses, carrying students to private colleges, polytechnics, ITI, etc and schools, regularly pick up and drops students in front of the Bus stand and it causes traffic block. Dharapuram Municipality had considered the proposal and passed a resolution objecting to it and also communicated to the Government. The local Member of Parliament and MLA and Chairman of Dharapuram Municipality have also sent their objections in writing to the proposed flyover to the concerned authorities. Several changes have been made quite arbitrarily and without conducting necessary field studies before finalizing the above proposals. A Road Traffic Density Survey has revealed that no significant improvements would result to the smooth flow of traffic at the site due to the construction of the flyover.
(v) Contending that the 3rd respondent has issued a Public Tender enquiry on 10.07.2017 calling for quotations for the construction of the above proposed fly over, which is said to be under consideration, and left with no other alternative, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for the relief stated supra.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Divisional Engineer (H), Tamilnadu Road Sector Project-II, Tiruppur, 6th respondent herein and the same is extracted:
(i) The Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II wing of Highways Department was formed in the year 2013 and functioning to facilitate fast and safe traffic by upgrading roads with the loan assistance of World Bank for the network of roads in Tamil Nadu State. The four land construction and strengthening of Oddanchatram - Dharapuram - Avinasipalayam road (SH37) Km. 37/4 to Km.108/4 from Oddanchatram to Avinashipalayam, for a length of 71.00 km was taken up under TNRSP-II, Fast Track roads, under the World Bank's assistance. This road is the only main route that connects Palani, Dindigul, Madurai, Theni, Kumuli, Tirunelveli, Nagercoil, Thenkasi, Karaikudi, Ramanathapuram and other parts of the southern region of Tamil Nadu with Tiruppur, Erode, Dharapuram, Coimbatore and Ooty.
(ii) Approximately 1125 trips are accounted in Dharapuram bus stand, (i.e) for every 3 minutes, 2 buses use the said bus stand. Further at a distance of 200 meters from the said bus stand, the SH37 and SH21 intersects. Due to the same, the users face heavy traffic congestion at the said location and for quicker movement of the vehicles from SH37 and in order to avoid accidents the current flyover construction is undertaken. It is necessary to state that at present, the existing highway at the entrance and exit of Dharapuram bus stand has only 4 lane divided carriageway, wherein due to the frequent use of the said highway by pedestrians and Mofussil / Town buses, the same causes severe hardship to the vehicles approaching the Coimbatore City.
(iii) Due to the abovesaid difficulties faced by the users of SH37 and SH21, it was decided to construct a flyover in the said junction, after conducting a detailed study. The detailed project report of the said project was prepared, as per Standard Specifications and Guidelines of Indian Roads Congress (IRC) by a reputed international consultant (M/s.STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai), who is an expert in the fields of highways, transportation, environmental, socio economic and finance. All the mandatory field studies, traffic studies, cost benefit analysis and social impact studies have been done comprehensively, as per the requirements envisaged in the IRC codes and guidelines for such projects. Necessary public hearings were also conducted at Dharapuram on 06.03.2015. It is necessary to state that comments from public were received and after consideration of the same and effectively incorporated in the Detailed Project Report and in order to ease the traffic congestion and to maintain safety of the fast moving vehicles and pedestrians, construction of a flyover/grade separator was found to be prime necessity and the same was included in the scope of the project, after careful field studies and various surveys related to the safe movement of traffic and pedestrians.
(iv) Service roads with 5.50m [18 feet] width is proposed on either side of the proposed flyover for a length of 161.23m. The said portion is about 80 meters away from the bus stand exit. Since the through traffic viz., lorries, trucks, cars etc., will use the flyover to cross over the town limit, the traffic through service roads and under the flyover will be much less and flow freely. Further, as the proposed service lane is a one way, on either side of the flyover, the chances are rare for any kind of traffic congestion near the bus stand area, as speculated by the petitioner. Instead, the proposed flyover (Grade Separator) will ensure free flow of traffic with at most safety. Facts presented by the petitioner are baseless and there is no ground reality in it. The proposed one way traffic flow in the service roads on either side of the flyover will help to maintain safe uninterrupted traffic.
(v) The proposed width of carriageway below the flyover, for the entire length is 9.00m in addition to 2.138m wide utility corridor and 1.50m wide footpath, on either side duly divided by centre median which covers the entry and exit area of bus stand. Obligatory spans are also proposed for a height of 5.50 metre as per Indian Roads congress guidelines for the bus stand area to cater all types of heavy vehicles traffic under the flyover. Hence there will not be any traffic problem and the same will only help to maintain free flow of traffic.
(vi) It is submitted that since heavy vehicles like lorries, trucks, cars and other fast moving vehicles heading towards Coimbatore, Tiruppur, Ooty and towards Oddanchatram, Palani, Dindigul, Madurai use the flyover, the traffic volume will be much diluted through service roads and below the flyover. Only the slow moving local traffic and vehicles heading for Pollachi and bus stand will use the 9.00m wide road under the flyover that too in one way, which is much safer for cyclists and pedestrians. As such considering the present scenario near the bus stand area, the proposed flyover construction would facilitate safe movement of cycles, two wheelers and pedestrians.
(vii) It is submitted that the entire 30 m wide road will be available under the flyover for a length of 540m except at the ramp portions where it will be a minimum of 5.50m, on both sides of the ramp to a length of only 161.23m on Oddanchatram side and 134.30m on Avinashipalayam side. Further it is also submitted that, many similar flyovers in the the state have service roads with only 5.50m width (18 feet) and it is evident that they are all serving well the purpose of decongesting the traffic. It is also submitted that except in the ramp portion sufficient width of 11.138m on both sides are designated for free flow of traffic going towards Bus Stant, Pollachi road and Dharapuram town and therefore, there will be no hindrance for cyclists and pedestrians.
(viii) Sixth respondent has further submitted that the size of the wind mill blade said by the petitioner as 100 m long and 30 m wide is imaginary and could never be transported to any place via road. The improvements at Dharapuram - Pollachi road junction are proposed as per IRC: SP:41-1994 standards, which can handle the turning movement of the maximum size trailers that are being used to transport the wind turbine wings. The standard requirements and actually proposed radii of roundabout at Pollachi road junction are given below;
Radius Inner Radius Outer radius Required as per standards for major junctions 6.10m 14.00m Proposed in the project 8.00m 18.50m As per IRC:SP:41-1994, Table 4.5, the maximum allowable width of heavy vehicles is 2.58m only. Hence the width of proposed service road can cater the movement of all kinds of larger vehicles. And also many other roads are available without touching Dharapuram town to transport wind mill blades.
(ix) The sixth respondent has further is submitted that the proposed flyover is having 4 land divided carriageway with centre median and reinforced concrete parapets for the safety of traffic as provided in many four land roads already in use, and there will not be any traffic congestion as stated by the petitioner.
(x) Further contention of the respondent is that 5.50m wide service road for a shorter length of 161.23m on Oddanchatram side and 134.30m on Tiruppur side on either side of the ramp portions of flyover for unidirectional traffic can cater all lengthy trucks. 5.50m (Intermediate Lane width) is the standard width for Major District roads in which traffic flows in both directions and many of such roads are functioning will facilitate hindrance free traffic. Since the service roads of a length of maximum 161m with 5.50m are only meant for one way traffic, there will not be any traffic problems as contended by the petitioner. It is submitted that the junction improvement proposed at Pollachi road junction with large turning radius can easily cater the movement of long vehicles and lengthy trailers.
(xi) It is submitted that since through traffic will ply over the flyover, the traffic intensity will be minimum under the bridge. Moreover the vehicles carrying students and children will not use the main carriageway to drop and pick up as per traffic rules.
(xii) Sixth respondent has further stated that even after the bifurcation of the bus stand, construction of a grade separator is essential in view of free flow of traffic and safety. It is submitted that as per IRC:62-1976, i.e., (flyovers) should be provided at the intersecting streets in urban areas, if the estimated traffic volumes within the next 5 years are in excess of the capacity of the intersection.
(Km 77/320, Junction at SH21 (Dharapuram-Pollachi road junction) The existing junction at this place is a 4 arm signal controlled intersection with huge right turning traffic. The junction is very close proximity to Dharapuram Bus stand area (Km 76/980 to 77/100) where lot of cross traffic movement at the entry and exit gates to the Bus stand is observed. It is observed that the major traffic flow at the junction is straight along SH-37 which constitutes 42.81% of junction volume including 11.3% of buses and 9.79% in the perpendicular direction i.e. along SH-21. Right turning traffic and left turning traffic constitutes 33.72% and 13.66% respectively. From these figures, it can be observed that the crossing traffic i.e., straight and right turning traffic (excluding left turning traffic) constitutes 76.53%. It is necessary to set that lot of cross pedestrian movement is observed at the Pollachi junction. As per the pedestrian counts survey at this junction, 113 pedestrians cross SH-37 and 324 number of pedestrian crossed SH-21 per hour. In view of the same and in order to improve the safety of traffic and pedestrian, it is proposed to construct a flyover having a four lane divided carriageway with 7.50m riding surface on either side for a total width of 16.625m at this location. Further, considering the proximity of the bus stand, it is proposed to extend the level portion of flyover so as to cover the Dharapuram Bus stand area beyond which the approach ramp will be provided. This flyover is proposed not only to avoid traffic congestion in front of bus stand but also for the prevailing haphazard and unsafe traffic condition at Pollachi road (SH21) intersection.
(xiii) Many representations from local individuals requesting to construct a flyover in the said junction were received by this office. Further large numbers of public have given their consent for the construction of flyover in the public hearing conducted at Dharapuram on 06.03.2015.
(xiv) Local Member of the Parliament, M.L.A and Chairman of Dharapuram Panchayat Union have also given their consents for construction of the flyover, after receiving repeated representations from public and realising the importance and the need of the flyover at this location.
(xv) Width of the flyover is revised to fix the configuration within the available right of way to minimise land acquisition and demolition of buildings and the related social impacts. The revision has been done as per the provisions of the IRC codes, only after carrying out all necessary field studies and surveys by the reputed consultants appointed by the TNRSP II.
(xvi) Necessary field surveys conducted for this fast track road are detailed below.
Sl.No. Type of Survey Duration of Survey a Classified Traffic Volume Count 7 days 28.12.2013 to 03.01.2014 b Pedestrian / Animal Crossing 4 hours in morning 4 hours in evening during peak hour (Location: Dharapuram bus stand are) c Number plate Survey One day (24 hrs) Three locations on 23.12.2013, 26.12.2013, 01.01.2014 d Origin and Destination survey One day (24 hrs) at 3 locations on 23.12.2013, 26.12.2013, 03.03.2014 e Speed and Delay Survey For the entire project corridor f Turning Movement survey 24 hrs on 09.04.2014 (xvii) The traffic growth rates with respect to all categories of vehicles have been worked out based on the past trends of vehicular traffic and the economic models as per IRC:108-1996. Also in order to maintain good Level of Service through this fast track road the construction of flyover at this location is highly warranted.
(xviii) Sixth respondent has further stated that the tender for the entire road project including the flyover to a cost of Rs.713 Crores has been called for and the same is in the final stage. As such, considering the large public interest, it is necessary to dedicate the benefits of the flyover to the public in time.
(xix) Detailed Project Report of this project has been prepared as per Standard Specifications and Guidelines of Indian Road Congress (IRC) by reputed international consultant (M/s.STUP Consultants Private Ltd., Mumbai) who is an expert in the field of highways, transportation and finance. Further as regards public hearing, field study and cost benefit analysis, the same have already been done through highly experienced internationally reputed consultant, in this field (M/s.STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai). Based on the outcome of the studies the flyover has been proposed.
(xx) Petitioner has already been intimated about the finalization of the proposed flyover by the Project Director (2nd Respondent) by a letter dt. 06.01.2016.
(xxi) Design of the Flyover/Grade Separator along with the road had been finalised by M/s.STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, a reputed international consultant in this field with due care. Extensive traffic surveys have been conducted and accordingly flyover has been designed by M/s.STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. The flyover was designed as warranted in the site, based on the prevailing and projected traffic demands. Detailed cost benefit analysis have also been done by M/s.STUP Consultants Pv.t Ltd., who have prepared project reports for many such projects and present in the field for more than 50 years.
(xxii) It is submitted that based on site requirements, traffic conditions and public safety only the said flyover has been proposed. All the necessary studies have been made by M/s.STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, after conducting public hearing, 06.03.2015, as per the project preparation guidelines, wherein the following persons participated;
1) Representatives of Bus Owners Association.
2) Hotel Owners
3) Local Public.
(xxiii) Sixth respondent has further stated that the construction of the said flyover is decided only after conducting public hearing, considering the objections raised in the above mentioned public hearing, as the same is essential for Dharapuram Town in the larger public interest.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
5. Before venturing into the averments of the writ petitioner, let us consider the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on Public Interest Litigations:
i) In S.P.Anand v. H.D.Deve Gowda reported in 1996 (6) SCC 734, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 18, held as follows:
"It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to espouse a public cause, he owes it to the public as well as to the court that he does not rush to court without undertaking a research, even if he is qualified or competent to raise the issue. Besides, it must be remembered that a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on half-baked information without proper research or by persons who are not qualified and competent to raise such issues as the rejection of such a petition may affect third party rights. Lastly, it must also be borne in mind that no one has a right to the waiver of the locus standi rule and the court should permit it only when it is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings is in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations. So also the court must be careful to ensure that the process of the Court is not sought to be abused by a person who desires to persist with his point of view, almost carrying it to the point of obstinacy, by filling a series of petitions refusing to accept the Court's earlier decisions as concluding the point. We say this because when we drew the attention of the petitioner to earlier decisions of this Court, he brushed them aside, without so much as showing willingness to deal with them and without giving them a second look, as having become stale and irrelevant by passage of time and challenged their correctness on the specious plea that they needed reconsideration. Except for saying that they needed reconsideration he had no answer to the correctness of the decisions. Such a casual approach to considered decisions of this Court even by a person well-versed in law would not be countenanced. Instead, as pointed out earlier, he referred to decisions having no bearing on the question, like the decisions on cow slaughter cases, freedom of speech and expresssion, uniform civil code, etc., we need say no more except to point out that indiscriminate of this important lever of public interest litigation would blunt the lever itself."
ii) In Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India reported in 2002 (2) SCC 333, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that, "Public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz. "litigation in the interest of the public."
iii) In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., reported in 2004 (3) SCC 349, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering few decisions, on the aspect of public interest litigation, observed as follows:
"4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke ones into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary [1992 (4) SCC 305] and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R.Srinivas v. R.M.Premchand (1994 (6) SCC 620).
5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression 'public interest litigation'. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
6. In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
"Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
7. In Janata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 52 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, has laid down as follows :
"The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL" means the legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
8. In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows:
"Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold."
9. In para 96 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as follows:
"While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that Courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration."
10. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:
"109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have as locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold".
11. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievance go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters - government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system.
12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
13. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined the "public interest litigation" in its report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows:
"Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others."
14. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharastra v. Prabhu [(1994 (2) SCC 481)] and Andra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s.GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Another [AIR 1994 SC 2151]. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K.Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT 265]. Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public.
16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and Ors., v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors., (AIR 1999 SC 114), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so- called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.
17. ..........
18. In S.P.Gupta v. Union of India [1981 Supp. SCC 87], it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. He has also left the following note of caution: (SCC p.219, para 24) "But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective."
19. In State of H.P. vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and Ors. (1985 (3) SCC 169), it has been said that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection.
20. Khalid, J. in his separate supplementing judgment in Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of W.B., (1987 (2) SCC 295, 331) said:
"Today public spirited litigants rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion. (SCC p. 331, para 46) * * * Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions. (SCC p.334, para 59) * * * I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self- imposed restraint on public interest litigants." (SCC p.335, para 61)
21. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench in ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India (1989 Supp (1) SCC 251), was in full agreement with the view expressed by Khalid, J. in Sachidanand Pandey's case (supra) and added that 'public interest litigation' is an instrument of the administration of justice to be used properly in proper cases. [See also separate judgment by Pathak, J. (as he then was) in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 (3) SCC 161).
22. Sarkaria, J. in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar (1976 (1) SCC 671) expressed his view that the application of the busybody should be rejected at the threshold in the following terms: (SCC p. 683, para 37) "It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories : (i) 'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold."
23. Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (1981 (1) SCC 568) in stronger terms stated: (SCC p.589, para 48) "48. If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him."
24. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharash Samiti v. State of U.P., (1990 (4) SCC 449), Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.J. observed: (SCC p.452, para 8) "While it is the duty of this Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of this Court to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the court."
25. In Union Carbid Corporation v. Union of India (1991 (4) SCC 584, 610), Ranganath Mishra, C.J. in his separate judgment while concurring with the conclusions of the majority judgment has said thus: (SCC p.610, para 21) "I am prepared to assume, nay, concede, that public activists should also be permitted to espouse the cause of the poor citizens but there must be a limit set to such activity and nothing perhaps should be done which would affect the dignity of the Court and bring down the serviceability of the institution to the people at large. Those who are acquainted with jurisprudence and enjoy social privilege as men educated in law owe an obligation to the community of educating it properly and allowing the judicial process to continue unsoiled."
26 In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991 (1) SCC 598) it was observed as follows:
"Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions under Article 32, are entertained it would amount to abuse of process of the court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court. Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation. Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 must approach this Court for the vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is the duty of this Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for personal matters under the garb of the public interest litigation".
27. In the words of Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) "the courts must be careful in entertaining public interest litigations" or in the words of Sarkaria, J. "the applications of the busybodies should be rejected at the threshold itself" and as Krishna Iyer, J. has pointed out, "the doors of the courts should not be ajar for such vexatious litigants"."
iv) In Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court reported in 2004 (13) SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"At the very outset, we put it to the petitioner that a bare perusal of the petition shows that it is based entirely on newspaper reports and asked him whether before filing the petition he has taken care to verify the facts personally. His answer is in the negative. In the writ petition all the 21 High Courts have been included as respondents and Union of India has also been impleaded as the 22nd respondent. We asked the petitioner what has provoked him to implead all the High Courts as respondents and he states that it is his apprehension that similar incidents may occur in other High Courts though there is no factual foundation for such appreciation.
5. After affording the full opportunity of hearing, we are satisfied that what purports to have been filed as a public interest litigation is nothing more than a "publicity interest litigation". It is writ large that it has been filed without any effort at verifying the facts by the petitioner personally."
v) In R & M.Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group reported in 2005 (3) SCC 91, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 23 and 24, observed as follows:
"23. Next question is whether such Public Interest Litigation should at all be entertained & laches thereon. This sacrosanct jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation should be invoked very sparingly and in favour of vigilant litigant and not for the persons who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of publicity or for the purpose of serving their private ends.
24. Public Interest Litigation is no doubt a very useful handle for redressing the grievances of the people but unfortunately lately it has been abused by some interested persons and it has brought very bad name. Courts should be very very slow in entertaining petitions involving public interest in a very rare cases where public at large stand to suffer. This jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the down trodden and not for the purpose of serving private ends. It has now become common for unscrupulous people to serve their private ends and jeopardize the rights of innocent people so as to wreak vengeance for their personal ends. This has become very handy to the developers and in matters of public contracts. In order to serve their professional rivalry they utilize the service of the innocent people or organization in filing public interest litigation. The Courts are sometimes persuaded to issue certain directions without understanding implication and giving a handle in the hands of the authorities to misuse it. Therefore, the courts should not exercise this jurisdiction lightly but should exercise in a very rare and few cases involving public interest of large number of people who cannot afford litigation and are made to suffer at the hands of the authorities."
vi) In Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2005 (5) SCC 136, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the scope of a petition styled as a public interest litigation, held as follows:
"5. The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this court in various cases. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
6. .....
7. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, High Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.
8. ......
9. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievance go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and substantial rights and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters - government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of tax cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions of luxury litigants who have nothing to loose but trying to gain for nothing and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants.
10. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
vii) In Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India reported in 2008 (5) SCC 511, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, held as follows:
"59. Unfortunately, the truth is that PILs are being entertained by many courts as a routine and the result is that the dockets of most of the superior courts are flooded with PILs, most of which are frivolous or for which the judiciary has no remedy. As stated in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 2005 SC 540, public interest litigation has nowadays largely become 'publicity interest litigation', 'private interest litigation', or 'politics interest litigation' or the latest trend 'paise income litigation'. Much of P.I.L. is really blackmail.
60. Thus, Public Interest Litigation which was initially created as a useful judicial tool to help the poor and weaker section of society who could not afford to come to courts, has, in course of time, largely developed into an uncontrollable Frankenstein and a nuisance which is threatening to choke the dockets of the superior courts obstructing the hearing of the genuine and regular cases which have been waiting to be taken up for years together."
In the same judgment, concurring with the view of his Brother Judge, Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K.Sema (as he then was), further added, as follows:
"69. Therefore, whether to entertain the petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation either represented by public-spirited person; or private interest litigation in the guise of public interest litigation; or publicity interest litigation; or political interest litigation is to be examined in the facts and circumstances recited in the petition itself. I am also of the view that if there is a buffer zone unoccupied by the legislature or executive which is detrimental to the public interest, judiciary must occupy the field to subserve public interest. Therefore, each case has to be examined on its own facts."
viii) In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale reported in 2012 (2) SCC 425, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"57. In the light of the above, we shall first consider whether the High Court committed an error by entertaining the writ petition filed by Subhash Rahangdale as public interest litigation. This Court has, time and again, laid down guiding principles for entertaining petitions filed in public interest. However, for the purpose of deciding the appellants' objection it is not necessary to advert to the plethora of precedents on the subject because in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402, a two-Judge Bench discussed the development of law relating to public interest litigation and reiterated that before entertaining such petitions, the Court must feel satisfied that the petitioner has genuinely come forward to espouse public cause and his litigious venture is not guided by any ulterior motive or is not a publicity gimmick.
58. In paragraphs 96 to 104, the Bench discussed Phase-III of the public interest litigation in the context of transparency and probity in governance, referred to the judgments in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2003) 7 SCC 532, Rajiv Ranjan Singh "Lalan" (VIII) v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 613, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 110, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2008) 1 SCC 407 and observed:
"These are some of the cases where the Supreme Court and the High Courts broadened the scope of public interest litigation and also entertained petitions to ensure that in governance of the State, there is transparency and no extraneous considerations are taken into consideration except the public interest. These cases regarding probity in governance or corruption in public life dealt with by the courts can be placed in the third phase of public interest litigation."
59. Reference also deserves to be made to the judgment of the three-Judge Bench in Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 in which a new dimension was given to the power of the Superior Courts to make investigation into the issues of public importance even though the petitioner may have moved the Court for vindication of a private interest. In that case the High Court had entertained a writ petition filed by Assistant Medical Officer of K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay questioning the assessment of answer sheets of the Post Graduate Medical Examinations held by the Bombay University in October 1985. He alleged malpractices in the evaluation of the answer sheets of the daughter of the appellant who, at the relevant time, was Chief Minister of the State. The learned Single Judge held that altering and tampering of the grade sheets was done by Dr. Rawal at the behest of the Chief Minister. The Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge with some modification.
60. While rejecting the objection raised on behalf of the appellant that the writ petition filed by the respondent cannot be treated as a petition filed in public interest, this Court observed:
"The allegations made in the petition disclose a lamentable state of affairs in one of the premier universities of India. The petitioner might have moved in his private interest but enquiry into the conduct of the examiners of the Bombay University in one of the highest medical degrees was a matter of public interest. Such state of affairs having been brought to the notice of the Court, it was the duty of the Court to the public that the truth and the validity of the allegations made be inquired into. It was in furtherance of public interest that an enquiry into the state of affairs of public institution becomes necessary and private litigation assumes the character of public interest litigation and such an enquiry cannot be avoided if it is necessary and essential for the administration of justice." (emphasis supplied)
5. Respondents in their detailed counter affidavit, have set out, the reasons for the construction of a fly over, at the above mentioned place and conducted a detailed study. Respondents have also considered the views of many, including the general public. Contents of the petitioner that there is no proper study of the whole project and study report, submitted is by an incompetent person, are duly countered by the respondents. Details furnished in the counter affidavit, shows that the petitioner without verifying all the details, has filed the instant writ petition, which deserves to be dismissed.
6. In the light of the above decisions, taking note of the averments in the counter affidavit, we are of the view that, there are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(S.M.K., J.) (S.P., J.) 24.09.2018 Index : Yes Internet : Yes Speaking/Non speaking ars/asr Note to office:
Issue order copy by 28.09.2018 To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Project Director, Tamilnadu Road Sector Project-II, TNHB Building, 1st Floor, No.171, South Kesavaperumal Puram, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
3. The Superintending Engineer (H), Tamilnadu Road Sector Project-II, TNHB Building, 1st Floor, No.171, South Kesavaperumal Puram, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
4. The Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition, Tamilnadu Road Development Plan-2, Highway City, Salem - 636 001.
5. The Special Divisional Engineer, Tamilnadu Road Development Plan-2, Highway Nagar, Salem - 636 001.
6. The Divisional Engineer, Tamilnadu Road Development Plan-2, J.K.Tower, Park Road, Binny Compound, Tiruppur - 641 601.
7. The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Collectorate, Cottom Market Building, Tiruppur - 641 604.
S.MANIKUMAR,J.
AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
ars/asr WP.No.2039 of 2018 and WMP No.2549 & 2550 of 2018 24.09.2018