Madras High Court
R. Rajendran, Secretary, C.W.P.R.Pc vs The District Collector And Ors. on 7 July, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)2MLJ474
ORDER Abdul Hadi, J.
1. The writ petitioner Rajendran, Secretary of the Consumers Welfare and Public Rights Protection Council, Poondurai, Periy&r District, has initiated this proceeding as a public interest litigation.
2. The writ petition seeks to quash the order dated 6.6.1994 of the 2nd respondent, the Additional Collector (Developments), Erode, and to direct the respondents, that is, the 1st respondent, the District Collector and 3rd respondent, the Special Officer of Thuyyampoondurai Panchayat and the abovesaid 2nd respondent, to construct the permanent office building for Thuyyampoondurai Panchayat at Goundachipalayam village.
3. According to the affidavit in support of the writ petition, persons belonging to the abovesaid Thuyyampoondurai Panchayat made representations to the petitioner's Association regarding in connection with the abovesaid proposed construction. According to the affidavit, the said persons were aggrieved by the attempt made by the respondents to shift the abovesaid Panchayat office to Mettupalayam and not locating it at Goundachipalayam village despite the fact that the said panchayat passed a resolution dated 23.10.1987 to construct the said panchayat office at the abovesaid Goundachipalayam. The abovesaid impugned order dated 6.6.1994 is actually a reply by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner's letter to the respondents 1 and 2 dated 21.3.1994. In the said reply dated 6.6.1994, the following reasons have been given by the 2nd respondent for constructing the Panchayat office only at Mettupalayam and not Goundachipalayam:
T. Mettupalayam village is having 3295 population with 11 hamlets. There is a Panchayat Office building which is in damaged condition. The Panchayat meetings are conducted in that building only. School D WCR A centre Trysem training place and transport facilities are also available in the village. The distance from other villages to Mettupalayam is 8 Km. only, whereas Kavandachipalayam village is having a population of 1925 with 7 hamlets only. The distance from other villages to Kavandachipalayam is 13 kms.
In view of the above facts, contention of your petition appears to be not based on facts on ground. Therefore, your request to construct Panchayat Office building at Kavandachipalayam cannot be complied with.
4. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner for some time, I posed the question to him how a public interest litigation by the petitioner would lie in the present case. I pointed out to him the decisions in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar , Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration , S.P. Gupta v. President of India and Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P. . According to those decisions a public interest litigation can be launched only : (1) when the actual aggrieved person is unable to approach the Court for redress owing to (a) such person being in custody or (b) such person belongs to a class or group of persons who are in a disadvantaged position on account of poverty, disability or other social or economical impediment and are unable to enforce their rights; and (2) even where no particular person has been legally injured but a public injury has been caused by the violation of a constitutional principle, such as the independence of the judiciary, any person who is likely to be affected by such public injury, such as a lawyer, would be allowed to complain of such violation. Since it appeared to me that the present case would not come under any one of the abovesaid two categories of cases, I put the abovesaid question to the learned Counsel. Though he agreed that the case would not come under No. (1) of the abovesaid two categories, according to him, it would come under No. (2) above. I am unable to agree with him in this regard. Even in the case of No. (2) above, only a person who is likely to be affected by such public injury would be allowed to initiate such an action. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner or his Association that he or the Association is likely to be affected by the abovesaid change in the location of the abovesaid Panchayat Office. That apart, the abovesaid change cannot be a violation of any constitutional principle. No, doubt, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the allegation in paragraph 8 of the supporting affidavit stating that the action of the respondents in taking steps to construct the abovesaid panchayat office at Mettupa-Iayam is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But, I am absolutely unable to see any substance in this argument. How Article 14 of the Constitution is violated by the abovesaid mere changeof location is nowhere stated in the affidavit.
5. No doubt, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on J. Mohapotra and Co. v. State of Orissa , to contend that the present public interest litigation by the petitioner could be entertained. But, I find that in the said Supreme Court case, the writ petition challenged the selection of books for educational institutions and it has been only held that even persons whose books have been selected or who have not submitted their books for selection have the standing to maintain the writ petition. In other words, what appears to me is that the writ petitioners there was held to be not totally strangers to the cause in question therein, but he was also concerned with the said case and only in that context the Supreme Court held that it was not necessary that the petitioner herein should himself have a personal interest in the matter. The said decision will have no application to the present case, where the petitioner is totally a third party to the cause in question, viz., location of the abovesaid Panchayat Office. Even according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the Association headquarters is about 30 kilometres from the abovesaid village in question. Nowhere it is also alleged that the petitioner or his Association will in any way be affected by the location of the Panchayat Office at Mettupalayam. Therefore, I hold that the present writ petition initiated by the petitioner is not maintainable. Even assuming that the writ petition is maintainable by the petitioner herein, I see no merit in the writ petition.
6. First of all, I should point out that the abovesaid impugned reply dated 6.6.1994 has given reasons for coming to the conclusion to locate the abovesaid Panchayat office be located in at Mettupalayam. As against the abovesaid reasons given, which have been extracted above, no exception of all has been taken in the affidavit in support of the writ petition. On the other hand, all that the learned Counsel submits is despite the above referred to resolution of the Panchayat in 1987 the 2nd respondent has refused to accede the request made by the petitioner. He further submits that as per Section 43 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, the Executive Authority is obliged to carry out the resolutions of the Panchayat. These submissions also have no merits. First of all, the abovesaid resolution of the panchayat was passed long back, that is about 7 years ago. How, even as per the version of the learned Counsel, the abovesaid Panchayat which passed the said resolution has been superseded in 1989 and the 3rd respondent Special Officer has assumed office in the place of the Panchayat. So, if a different decisions taken by thesaid 3rd respondent after about 7 years regarding the location of the Panchayat office, it cannot be said that Section 43 of the Panchayats Act is violated.
7. Therefore, I see no reason to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the writ petition is not admitted, but dismissed.