Madras High Court
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra ... vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2008
Author: S.J.Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J.Mukhopadhaya, M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29th April, 2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.(MD).No.4535 of 2007 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2007 & 1 of 2008 All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, 226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. Represented by its Fisheries Wing Secretary, D.Jayakumar, M.L.A. .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi-1. 2. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Chief Secretary, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 3. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-600 004. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai. 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli. 6. The Commissioner of Police, South Koil Kooda Street, Chithrai Street, Madurai-625 001. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai. 8. M.K.Azhagiri .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.P.H.Manoj Pandian For respondents: Mr.K.Gunasekar, CGSC for R-1 Mr.P.S.Raman, Addl. Advocate General(1), assisted by Mr.D.Sreenivasan,Addl.G.P.for R-2 Mr.S.Ramasamy, Addl. Advocate General(2), assisted by Mr.P.Muthukumar, Govt. Advocate for RR-3 to 7 ORDER
S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J This Writ Petition in public interest, has been preferred by a political party, with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus or direction in the nature of Writ, directing the constitution of a body of persons of very high integrity and dignity as this Court may deem fit and direct the composition of such body thus appointed by this Court to look after and monitor the complete law and order situation including the Constitutional obligation with respect to public order, law and order and maintenance of public tranquility in the Districts of Madurai, Dindigul, Kanniyakumari, Ramanathapuram, Sivaganga, Theni, Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli and Virudhunagar, by duly sending its monthly report to this Court and to render justice.
2. The case was initially taken up by a Bench on 30.7.2007. On the same day, making a claim that the petitioner, a political party, being a Legislative party of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, has got locus to maintain this Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as 'the PIL'), by referring to Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, placing reliance on Article 355 of the Constitution of India relating to the duty of the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance, citing an alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 9.5.2007 at about 9.20 a.m. as to the attack on the "Dinakaran" office (a newspaper) and complaining that the State Police officials have deliberately not acted in accordance with law and there has been dereliction of duty by them, it sought to direct the constitution of a body of persons of very high integrity and dignity and to direct the composition of such body appointed by this Court to look after and monitor the complete law and order situation, including the Constitutional obligation with respect to the public order, law and order and maintenance of public tranquility in the Districts aforesaid. The case was argued before the said Bench and later on, in view of the request made by the petitioner, the case was transferred from Madurai Bench to the Principal Bench of this Court.
3. The Writ Petition has been preferred by a Member of Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as 'the MLA') of a political party, who claims to be the Secretary of the Fisheries Wing. While it is stated that the political party has great concern for the public issues, both at the national level and the international level, it is also given the details of its Members in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and other details of the petitioner-political party.
4. Main allegation has been made against a private individual, who has been impleaded as the eighth respondent to the Writ Petition. According to the petitioner, the eighth respondent controls the entire administration of the Southern Districts of Madurai, Dindigul, Kanniyakumari, Ramanathapuram, Sivaganga, Theni, Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli and Virudhunagar, as an extra Constitutional authority with respect to the appointment of Collectors, top rank Police Officers etc., apart from appointment of other important Officers of various Departments of the Government. Though such an allegation has been made, there is nothing on record to support such a statement to show any extra Constitutional activity of the eighth respondent. It is for the said reason, instead of issuing any notice to the eighth respondent, on 13.12.2007, when the case was heard, the petitioner was asked to address the Court in regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition, particularly, the manner in which the prayer is couched.
5. Apart from general allegations which have been made against the eighth respondent that he is functioning as an all powerful extra Constitutional authority and that the Government Officers are meticulously carrying out his orders, no specific incident has been shown in the Writ Petition, except the incident of attack alleged to have been made in the Office of the newspaper "Dinakaran" by a gang of 50 persons on 9.5.2007 at about 9.20 a.m.
6. Giving reference to the Bye-Election to 143.Madurai Central Assembly Constituency, allegations were made against several Police Officers, whose names have been shown at paragraph 13 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. But in the absence of such Officers and the fact that the Bye-Election has already been completed peacefully, we are not inclined to notice such allegation in the present Writ Petition for grant of relief as sought for in the present case.
7. It is further alleged that it is a matter of pity that the IPS and IAS Officers, who should have a broad national outlook in serving the public, have surrendered themselves to the eighth respondent without any sting of conscience.
8. General allegations have been made that innumerable grave crimes have been left without any formal registration of the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'the FIR'), investigation or prosecution, etc., perpetrated by the ruling political party by indulging in various kinds of unlawful activities and various crimes throughout Tamil Nadu.
9. It is alleged that no opposition political party is permitted within the confines of the aforesaid Districts and the Police refuse permission to the opposition political parties for conducting public meetings, distribution of pamphlets, affixation of wall posters, etc.
10. All such allegations have been made without citing any single incident in the Writ Petition. Apart from the fact that vague allegations have been made, it will be evident from the pleadings made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the reply given by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing, that no FIR has been lodged by the political party in regard to the complaint as vaguely made with regard to one or other incident either before the Police or in a Magisterial Court in case the Police refused to accept the complaint.
11. In the absence of such specific allegation, the fact that no individual incident has been mentioned in this regard, apart from the one as recorded above and the fact that no complaint has been lodged either before the Police or before any Judicial Magistrate of the State, this Court is not inclined to accept any such vague allegation.
12. So far as the incident dated 9.5.2007 alleged to have taken place at about 9.20 a.m. in the newspaper office "Dinakaran" is concerned, it appears that already the Police has lodged the FIR, a criminal case has been instituted and it is the State Government which has entrusted the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'the CBI') for investigation and the matter is pending. Therefore, in the present case, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to give any finding in regard to the criminal case which is pending consideration before a Court of competent jurisdiction and under the investigation by the CBI.
13. There are various other vague allegations made with regard to the personality cult by putting banners, posters, hoardings, cut-outs and arches, depicting such individual, as erected in praise of the eighth respondent. That cannot be a ground to grant the relief, as in the normal course, it is found that the political parties, in the interest of its followers and many times, the followers themselves, put the banners, posters, hoardings, cut-outs and arches, of their leaders, which cannot be alleged to be any offence, till it is shown that such banners, posters, hoardings, cut-outs and arches, have been erected against any law.
14. In fact, if general allegations as made in the total affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, are gone through, it would be evident that the petitioner being a political party, has tried to attack another political party, in its own interest. Practically, no public interest is involved, though one may allege that it is in political interest the Writ Petition has been preferred.
15. We are not detailing the allegations, as they have been made against one or other individual political leaders, including those who are not party-respondents to the Writ Petition, as it may affect the stature of such individuals without hearing them, that too, in a case where vague allegations have been made.
16. So far as the maintainability of the Writ Petition is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to one or other decision of the Supreme Court/High Court. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2006 (8) SCC 1 (Prakash Singh vs. Union of India) relating to the Police Reforms, including the measures to insulate Police machinery from Political/Executive interference. However, as those matters are pending before the Supreme Court to find out whether the direction of the Supreme Court has been complied with by one or other State, we are not inclined to deliberate on such issue, nor that can be a ground to seek the relief as sought for in the present case.
17. The other cases referred are:
Sl.NO.
Mode of citation Party name 1 2005 (2) Supreme 250 Suresh Chandra Sharma vs. Chairman, UPSEB and others.2
2004 (4) SCC 158 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat 3 2006 (3) SCC 374 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh(5) vs. State of Gujarat 4 2003 (10) SCC 561 M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India 5 2007 (8) SCC 583 Research Foundation for Science vs. Union of India 6 2007 (1) CTC 705 (Madras High Court) All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs. State Election Commissioner 7 2003 (10) SCC 445 Supreme Court Monitoring Committee vs. Mussoorie Dheradun Development Authority 8 2007 (10) SCALE 348 Pramod Kumar vs. B.V.S.Morcha to show that in one or other case, the High Court or the Supreme Court has made certain directions to get the matter investigated through one or other agency in public interest.
18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents-State, referred to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 to 6 and denied the allegations which are vague. They have also raised the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition, as according to them, it has been filed to abuse the process of Court in personal political interest. It is alleged that the political party ha no locus-standi to maintain a PIL, particularly, the manner in which the prayer has been couched.
19. At paragraph 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has alleged that the Government is a minority Government, ruling the State, which has been rightly opposed by the respondents as highly objectionable in the absence of any Constitution concept of a minority Government. In fact, the petitioner cannot allege an elected Government as a minority Government, which has already proved its majority in the House, nor it can unseat an elected Government by filing a Writ Petition.
20. The respondents have also pleaded the scandalous allegations as made against the elected leader of the ruling party, as unfortunate. It was rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that without impleading such high dignitary as a party-respondent to the Writ Petition, no personal allegation should have been made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition.
21. Extra Constitutional influence as alleged to have been made by the eighth respondent on the State Administration, has also been denied by the respondents. According to the respondents, the law and order of the State is normal and no interference is called for.
22. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State also raised the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the question of invoking Article 355 of the Constitution of India relating to the duty of the Union of India to protect the States against "external aggression and internal disturbance", cannot be the subject matter before this Court. It was further submitted that if there is any breach of law and order of the State, though it is open to Members of Parliament to raise such issue before the Parliament, but such issue cannot be determined in a case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State also placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his stand that the "PIL" in question, is not maintainable.
23. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the rival contentions, including the allegations as made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.
24. We have already observed that vague allegations have been made by the petitioner and that the Writ Petition appears to have been filed in political interest to malign another political party, i.e. the ruling party.
25. So far as the prayer made in the Writ Petition is concerned, it has not been made clear as to under which provision of law the petitioner prays for constitution of "a body of persons of very high integrity and dignity" "to look after and monitor the Constitutional obligations with respect to the public order, law and order and maintenance of public tranquility in certain Districts of the State". Merely because FIR had been lodged by one or other person against another individual, it cannot be a ground to allege that there is no law and order in a particular place or District or State. Every day FIR is lodged, if any criminal activity is alleged and in appropriate cases, if the charges are proved, the Court of competent jurisdiction convicts the accused. But that cannot be a ground to monitor all the cases by constituting "a body of persons of very high integrity and dignity" in the name of supervising or monitoring the law and order.
26. So far as the particular incident as alleged to have taken place on 9.5.2007 is concerned, the State Government itself, with a view to show its transparency, has handed over the matter to the CBI, for its investigation. The investigation having been handed over to a Central agency other than the State agency, the question of monitoring such case by any "body of persons/Committee" does not arise.
27. In the case of "Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India", reported in 2002 (2) SCC 333, the scope and ambit of PIL, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court, which observed as follows:
"79. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that public interest litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counterproductive.
80. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court for relief. There have been, in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore, there is a need to re-emphasize the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the court. This aspect come up for consideration before this Court and all we need to do is to recapitulate and re-emphasize the same.
81. What public interest litigation is meant to be has been explained at length in S.P.Gupta v. Union of India (1981 Supp SCC 87). Public interest litigation in that case was filed relating to the appointment and transfer of Judges and it is in this connection that the question arose with regard to the locus standi of the petitioner to file the writ petition. While deciding this aspect, this Court examined as to what is the nature of the public interest litigation and who can initiate the same. At p.215, Bhagwati,J. observed as follows: (SCC para 20) "It is for this reason that in public interest litigation--litigation undertaken for the purpose of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests or vindicating public interest, any citizen who is acting bona fide and who has sufficient interest has to be accorded standing."
82. The limitation within which the Court must act, and the caution against the abuse of the same is referred to by Bhagwati,J. at p.219-20 as follows: (SCC para 24) "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. Andre Rabie has warned that 'political pressure groups who could not achieve their aims through the administrative process' and we might add, through the political process, 'may try to use the courts to further their aims'. These are some of the dangers in public interest litigation which the court has to be careful to avoid. It is also necessary for the court to bear in mind that there is a vital distinction between locus standi and justiciability and it is not every default on the part of the State or a public authority that is justiciable. The court must take care to see that it does not overstep the limits of its judicial function and trespass into areas which are reserved to the executive and the legislature by the Constitution. It is a fascinating exercise for the court to deal with public interest litigation because it is a new jurisprudence which the court is evolving, a jurisprudence which demands judicial statesmanship and high creative ability. The frontiers of public law are expanding far and wide and new concepts and doctrines which will change the complexion of the law and which were so far as embedded in the womb of the future, are beginning to be born.
25. Before we part with this general discussion in regard to locus standi, there is one point we would like to emphasise and it is, that cases may arise where there is undoubtedly public injury by the act or omission of the State or a public authority but such act or omission also causes a specific legal injury to an individual or to a specific class or group of individuals. In such cases, a member of the public having sufficient interest can certainly maintain an action challenging the legality of such act or omission, but if the person or specific class or group of persons who are primarily injured as a result of such act or omission, do not wish to claim any relief and accept such act or omission willingly and without protest, the member of the public who complains of a secondary public injury cannot maintain the action, for the effect of entertaining the action at the instance of such member of the public would be to foist a relief on the person or specific class or group of persons primarily injured, which they do not want."
(emphasis added)
28. In the case of "Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee vs. C.K.Rajan, reported in 2003 (7) SCC 546, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the scope and ambit of PIL, summarised the principled evolved by it, at paragraph 50, which reads as follows:
"50. The principles evolved by this Court in this behalf may be suitably summarized as under:
(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court.
The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfil its constitutional promises. (See S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87; People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 494 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 262; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 389: (1984) 2 SCR 67; Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36).
(ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of the public vis-a-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. (See Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, (1978) 4 SCC 104 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 542; Hussainara Khatoon(I) v. Home Secy. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 23).
(iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial.
In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 934 : AIR 1979 SC 468, it was held: (SCC p.169, para 2) "2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner's grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances."
(See also Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D.Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230 : (2003) 5 Scale 138).
(iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. (See Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568 : AIR 1981 SC 344; S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87; People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 494 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 262; D.C.Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 378; BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333).
(v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 389 : (1984) 2 SCR 67).
(vi) Although procedural laws apply to PIL cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depends on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. (See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 and Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal(Regd.), (1986) 1 SCC 100).
(vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. (See Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251).
(viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (See Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr.Mahesh Madhav Gosavi, (1987) 1 SCC 227).
(ix) The Court in special situations may appoint a Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such Committee. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 389 : (1984) 2 SCR 67; Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 644; A.P.Pollution Control Board v. Prof.M.V.Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718).
In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B (1987 (2) SCC 295) this Court held: (SCC pp.334-35, para 61) "61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action on when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected. 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."
In Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36) this Court opined: (SCC p.348, para 109) "109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a 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."
The Court will nor ordinarily transgress into a policy. It shall also take utmost care not to transgress its jurisdiction while purporting to protect the rights of the people from being violated.
In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000 (10) SCC 664) it was held: (SCC pp.762-63, paras 229 & 232) "229. It is now well settled that the courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people's fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution. Even then any challenge to such a policy decision must be before the execution of the project is undertaken. Any delay in the execution of the project means overrun in costs and the decision to undertake a project, if challenged after its execution has commenced, should be thrown out at the very threshold on the ground of laches if the petitioner had the knowledge of such a decision and could have approached the court at that time. Just because a petition is termed as a PIL does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will not apply. Laches is one of them.
* * *
232. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is, in our constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the court's jurisdiction."
(x) The Court would ordinarily not step out of the known areas of judicial review. The High Courts although may pass an order for doing complete justice to the parties, they do not have a power akin to Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
(xi) Ordinarily, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition by way of public interest litigation questioning the constitutionality or validity of a statute or a statutory rule."
29. In "Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prem Chandra Mishra", reported in 2008 (1) CTC 711 (SC), the Supreme Court observed that PIL 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. (emphasis added).
30. In the case of "Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B", reported in 2004 (3) SCC 349, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the maintainability of a PIL, observed that there is necessity of disclosure of source of information on which a PIL may be based, and on failure to meet the requisite criteria for proper information on which a PIL may be based, the Court may impose exemplary costs.
31. In the present case, though various vague allegations have been made, apart from the fact that no specific instance has been given, the petitioner has not disclosed the source of information, particularly in respect of certain allegations, for which there appears to be no complaint lodged before the Police or the Court of competent jurisdiction or even the competent authority of the State.
32. In the present case, the main allegation relates to failure of the Constitutional machinery of the State in maintaining law and order. Apart from the fact that the allegations are vague, the subject matter is covered by Article 356 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the President of the Country to pass certain orders in terms of the provisions made therein.
33. In the case of "Divl. Manager, Aravali Golf Club vs. Chander Hass", reported in 2008 (1) SCC 683, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the separation of powers, including the limits of powers of the Judiciary, deprecated the attempt on the part of the Court in certain cases to perform the Executive or Legislative functions.
34. As it is pointed out that the allegations as made in the present case and the subject matter, are wholly within the domain of the Legislature, exercising such power in the name of "public interest" and "maintenance of law and order" under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not arise.
35. In view of our finding that the Writ Petition has been preferred on the basis of vague allegations in the name of "public interest" and it appears to have been filed in political interest by one political party against another political party, the relief as sought for in the present case, in the absence of specific allegation, cannot be granted and we have no other option except to dismiss the Writ Petition. But, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the intention of the petitioner is to have good law and order in the State and not to malign any person, accepting such submission, we are not imposing any costs on the petitioner.
36. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(S.J.M.J) (M.V.J) 29.4.2008 Index: Yes Internet: Yes cs To
1. The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi-1.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Chief Secretary, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
3. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-600 004.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli.
6. The Commissioner of Police, South Koil Kooda Street, Chithrai Street, Madurai-625 001.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai.
S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J and M.VENUGOPAL,J cs Order in W.P.(MD).No.4535 of 2007 29th April, 2008