Madras High Court
Cascade Energy Pte Ltd vs Union Of India
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan, P.Rajamanickam
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.01.2019
DELIVERED ON : 25.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
W.P.Nos.1039 and 1081 of 2019
and WMP.Nos.1165 and 1217 of 2019
Cascade Energy Pte Ltd.
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Mr.Karamjeet Singh Dhillon,
A Company registered under the laws of Singapore
203, Hougang Street No.03-73,
Singapore-530 203 .. Petitioner in both W.Ps.
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Law and Justice,
4th Floor, A-Wing,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
2.Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
437 'C' – Wing Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi.
3.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
http://www.judis.nic.in Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2
4.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Industries Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
5.Additional Secretary to
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Special Officer, Global Investors Meet 2019,
Chennai-9.
6.The Executive Vice Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Industrial Guidance and
Export Promotion Bureau,
19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
7.Additional Director,
Serious Fraud Investigation Office,
No.29, Rajaji Salai, Corporate Bhawan,
Ground Floor, Chennai-600 001.
8.Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Kailasapuram, Mylapore-600 004.
9.Commissioner of Police,
No.132, Commissioner's Office Building,
EVK Sampath Road,
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
10.Mr.Rohit Rabindranath,
Director, Zynergy Solar Products &
Services Pvt. Ltd.,
rd
3 Floor, Block-A, Bannari Amman Towers,
No.29, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. .. Respondents
(R10 impleaded in both writ petitions, vide order
dated 21.01.2019 made in WMP.Nos.1539
and 1541 of 2019 respectively )
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
Prayer in W.P.No.1039 of 2019 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to frame guidelines in order to protect the foreign investors
from getting cheated by the tainted companies in the interest of the nation
and for further relief.
Prayer in W.P.No.1081 of 2019 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the
respondents from conducting the Global Investors Meet to be held on 23-24
January, 2019 until such guidelines are framed to safeguard the interest of
the foreign investors and for further relief.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabhakaran, Senior Counsel
in W.P.No.1039/2019 for Mr.MA.Gouthaman
in W.P.No.1081/2019 : Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Karthikeyan Sekar
For Respondents : Dr.V.Venkatesan,
Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel
for R1, R2 and R7 in both W.Ps.
Mr.Vijay Narayan, Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan,
Govt. Pleader (In-Charge) &
Mr.E.Manoharan, Addl. Govt. Pleader
for R3 to R5, R8 and R9 in both W.Ps.
Mr.Balasubramanian
for R10 in W.P.No.1039 of 2019
Mr.Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.V.Pravin Rathinam,
http://www.judis.nic.in
for R10 in W.P.No.1081 of 2019
4
COMMON ORDE R
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
Both the writ petitions are filed by one and the same petitioner and the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions as well as the grounds of challenge are one and the same and therefore, both the writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order. The affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions are sworn to by Mr.Karamjeet Singh Dhillon, who is said to be the authorized signatory of the petitioner company, having its registered office at No.203, Hougang Street, No.03-73, Singapore-530 203.
W.P.No.1039 of 2019
2. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition among other things that the petitioner company had participated in the Tamil Nadu Global Investors Meet held during the year 2015 and by virtue of a strategic investment agreement dated 27.07.2015, it had invested a sum of Rs.33 Crores in a company called M/s.Zynergy Solar Projects and Services Private Limited, represented by Mr.Rohit Rabindranath (10th respondent), who was subsequently impleaded as party in these writ petitions.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
3. The petitioner would further aver that it had purchased 51% of Equity Shares belonging to the 10th respondent company and though it was represented that investments in the said company would yield good returns, it was not so and in fact, they have been cheated by the 10 th respondent, more particularly by Mr.Rohit Rabindranath. The petitioner had enumerated the details of criminal prosecution launched against Mr.Rohit Rabindranath in Crime No.999 of 2017 dated 23.06.2017 and the investigation being done by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office.
4. It is also the stand of the petitioner that without verifying the antecedents or otherwise of the participants of the Global Investors Meet, persons, who are facing criminal prosecution and committing criminal illegal activities, are allowed to participate in the Global Investors Meet conducted by the Government of Tamil Nadu and since the foreign investors tend to believe that the event organized by the Government of Tamil Nadu would be proper, they are making investments in crores and crores of rupees, but ultimately they were cheated and therefore, the petitioner came forward to file this writ petition praying for appropriate direction for framing guidelines for the purpose of protecting the interest of http://www.judis.nic.in foreign depositors.
6W.P.No.1081 of 2019
5. The petitioner in W.P.No.1039 of 2019 has also come forward to file this writ petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from conducting the Global Investors Meet to be held on 23 rd and 24th January, 2019, till guidelines are framed to safeguard the interest of foreign investors. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition contains the very same averments as that of W.P.No.1039 of 2019.
6. Both the writ petitions were listed for admission before this Court on 11.01.2019 and this Court has gone through the contents of the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and expressed it's view that since serious allegations have been levelled against a private entity and that they were not made as parties, in all fairness, they should be impleaded as parties in the writ petitions and accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.1039 of 2019 prayed for time and it was granted. The petitioner filed WMP.Nos.1539 and 1541 of 2019 respectively in the writ petitions, praying for impleadment of the private respondent and both the petitions were ordered and they were arrayed as the 10th respondent in the writ petitions.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
7. In W.P.No.1039 of 2019, for the newly impleaded 10th respondent, Mr.Balasubramanian of M/s.BFS Legal accepted notice and in W.P.No.1081 of 2019, Mr.S.V.Pravin Rathinam, accepted notice on behalf of the newly impleded 10th respondent.
8. Mr.S.Prabakaran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.M.A.Gowthaman, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1039 of 2019 and Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Karthikeyan Sekar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1081 of 2019 made vehement and forceful submissions by drawing the attention of this Court to the contents of the writ petition affidavits as well as the typed set of documents and would submit that admittedly, Global Investors Meet during the year 2015 was conducted by the Industries Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the writ petitioner, believing that the investors/companies, who are going to participate in the meeting would be proper and genuine, had entered into an agreement with the 10 th respondent on 27.07.2015 and subsequently, the 10th respondent started indulging in illegalities and criminal prosecution had also been launched and though they are very much interested in participating in the present Global Investors Meet to be held on 23rd and 24th January, 2019, they are very much hesitant http://www.judis.nic.in to do so for the reason that unless proper guidelines are put in place by the 8 concerned entities as to the antecedents and genuineness of the persons/entities who are going to participate in the said meet, they may not be in a position to make investments and the things that happened to the petitioner may happen to other investors also and in that event, a shadow of doubt would be caused on the Government of Tamil Nadu, who is conducting the present meet and the conduct of such meets in future and as a whole, the fame and reputation of the country would be put to serious jeopardy and it may not augur well for the State of Tamil Nadu as well as the Country in the form of attracting investments from foreign countries/investors and therefore, pray for appropriate orders.
9. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.V.Jayaprakash, Narayanan, learned Government Pleader (In-charge) and Mr.E.Manoharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 to 5, 8 and 9 in both the writ petitions, on instructions, would submit that insofar as the present Global Investors Meet 2019 is concerned, necessary information was posted in the website even during August, 2018 and the Government of Tamil Nadu is acting as a facilitator between the Indian and Foreign Investors which include public sector companies also. The learned Advocate General would further submit that in the Global http://www.judis.nic.in Investors Meet held during the year 2015, the following investments were 9 made which would generate employment and also produced the website information of the details of Memorandum of Understandings signed during the Global Investors Meet, 2015 and it is relevant to extract the same:
Sl.No. Name of the No. of Investment Employment
Department MOU's (Rs. in Crore)
1 Industries Department 50 1,04,286.00 1,14,455
2 Energy Department 15 1,07,136.00 15,850
3 MSME Department * 16,532.67 ---
4 IT Department 17 10,950.00 2,05,500
5 HHTK Department 10 1,954.83 65,010
6 Animal Husbandry 4 500.00 500
Department
7 Agriculture 2 800.00 68,750
TOTAL 98 2,42,160.00 4,70,065
* MSME Department has signed 10,073 MOU's in 32 Districts of the State during the Roadshows conducted in the last few months.
10. It is the further submission of the learned Advocate General that the Memorandum of Understanding is an expression of interest and after negotiations, regular agreements would come into being between the parties concerned and insofar as the Government of Tamil Nadu is concerned, delegates from foreign countries would be given accommodation at the State expenses and other hospitalities would be provided to the participants by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The learned Advocate General has invited the attention of this Court to the Broucher of the Tamil Nadu Global Investors Meet, 2019 and would submit that in the Global Investors Meet http://www.judis.nic.in 10 2015, the Government of Tamil Nadu has attracted investments worth more than Rs.240 Lakh Crores and more than 5000 delegates from India and across the land participated and about 100 MOUs were signed.
11. It is also pointed out by the learned Advocate General that the Government of Tamil Nadu has also passed the Tamil Nadu Business Facilitation Act, 2018 [Act. No.7 of 2018], which deals with pre- establishment clearances, post operational clearances, renewals and incentives and two websites have also been opened, namely “www.easybusiness.tn.gov.in”and “www.easybusiness.tn.gov.in/msme”. The screen shot of the Single Window Portal of the Government of Tamil Nadu uploaded in the website, namely “https://easybusiness.tn.gov.in”, has also been enclosed in the typed set of documents filed in support of the writ petition and the learned Advocate General pointed out that there are links wherein downloads can be done, which include land dispute details also and if anybody is having doubt, they can contact the Tamil Nadu Industrial Guidance and Export Promotion Bureau, No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 and a telephone helpline between 10.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. (on all working days) is also functioning and the website viz., [email protected] (mail to : easy business @ tn.gov.in) is also http://www.judis.nic.in functioning round the clock.
11
12. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court by the learned Advocate General that the Tamil Nadu Global Investors Meet, 2019 would commence at 9.00 a.m. on 23.01.2019 and ends at 6.00 p.m. on 24.01.2019 and all necessary and proper arrangements have already been made and nearly 5,000 invitations have been sent and eminent persons in relevant fields have been invited to address the gathering/seminar and the Hon'ble Vice President of India as well as Union Cabinet Ministers are also expected to participate in the said meeting and at the last moment, the petitioner, with an oblique motive wants to stall the entire proceedings.
13. The learned Advocate General, on the legal plea, would submit that the entire affidavit is devoted to the personal allegation against the newly impleaded private respondent/10th respondent and no grounds have been put forward as to why the Global Investors Meet, 2019 should not be allowed and would further urge that in the absence of any statutory right on the part of the petitioner seeking appropriate directions to frame guidelines, the Writ of Mandamus sought for by the petitioner in W.P.No.1039 of 2019 is per se not maintainable.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12
14. As regards W.P.No.1081 of 2019, it is the submission of the learned Advocate General that the averments in the said writ petition are nothing but verbatim reproduction of the averments made in W.P.No.1039 of 2019 and both the writ petitions are nothing but Private Interest Litigations and under the garb of filing the writ petitions, the petitioner want to gather materials and to settle the score with the private respondent and it is nothing but an abuse of process of law and prays for dismissal of the writ petitions with exemplary costs.
15. Mr.Balasubramanian and Mr.S.V.Pravin Rathinam, respective learned counsel appearing for the private respondent/10 th respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit of Mr.Rohit Rabindranath/newly impleaded 10th respondent and would submit that the person actually heading the company is not Mr.Tej Kohli, but his original name is Navtej Kohli and he is facing number of criminal and other prosecutions in the Courts at United States of America and in one such case, he has been convicted and sentenced by the US District Court, Central District California and he has also been deported from USA due to his involvement in the said cases and all these facts have been suppressed in the http://www.judis.nic.in writ petition. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing 13 for the newly impleaded 10th respondent that the writ petitions have been filed to wreck vengeance upon them and they are nothing but Private Interest Litigations and came to be filed by abusing the process of law and since the writ petitioner deliberately suppressed the material and relevant facts, the concerned persons should be prosecuted for perjury also and both the writ petitions deserve dismissal with exemplary costs.
16. This Court paid its anxious consideration and best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the entire materials placed before it.
17. A careful scrutiny and perusal of the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions would disclose among other things that from paragraph Nos.4 to 34, the deponent of the affidavit deal with the allegations against the private respondent and it is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that despite making such serious allegations, the concerned private respondent has not been arrayed as party in the writ petitions and only after this Court pointed out to the respective learned counsel for the petitioner, miscellaneous petitions were filed for their impleadment, which came to be ordered.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14
18. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, no grounds, leave alone tenable grounds, have been raised in the writ petitions, in support of the prayer sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner as well as the private respondent/10th respondent trade series of allegations against each other and this Court is not inclined to go into the same for the reason that it involve adjudication of disputed question of facts, which may require necessary and proper averments, oral and documentary evidence.
19. Insofar as the prayer sought for by the petitioner as to the framing of necessary guidelines are concerned, a perusal of the Table of Contents of the Investors' Handbook, published on the eve of the Tamil Nadu Global Investors Meet 2015 reads as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in 15
20. The learned Advocate General would submit that similar contents would also be there in the present Global Investors Meet also and necessary redressal mechanism had also been put in place in the form of useful http://www.judis.nic.in website links, which include land dispute details also and telephone helpline 16 is also made available between 10.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. on all working days and the website will be in operation round the clock.
21. In the decision in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal and Others [AIR 2004 SC 280], a writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in public interest to convert the sentence of death imposed on one Dhananjay Chatterjee to a life sentence on the ground that the sentence of death have not been put into execution for quite long time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note of the fact about the misuse of public interest litigations and observed as follows:
“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 http://www.judis.nic.in such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.17
....
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 Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, (1994 (2) SCC 481), and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., (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 Dr. B.K. Subbarao vs. Mr. 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 http://www.judis.nic.in in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest 18 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.”
22. In Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India and Others [2008 (4) Scale 848], a writ petition came to be filed praying for a Mandamus directing the respondents therein to set up fully satisfactory procedures of licensing of vehicles and licensing of drivers, for ensuring that the vehicles are fully equipped with all the safety travel requirements and other related reliefs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to very http://www.judis.nic.in many earlier decisions rendered by it, observed as follows: 19
“53(43). The directives sought for in this petition require the expertise of administrative and technical officials, apart from financial resources. Not only should the Court not give such directives because that would violate the principle of separation of powers, but also because these are highly technical matters to be left to be dealt with by administrative and technical authorities who have experience and expertise in the matter. For instance, what should be the maximum permissible speed for vehicles in a city, where should speed breakers be fixed, when should heavy vehicles be allowed on roads, and other matters for ensuring road safety are all matters to be dealt with by the concerned authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act and other enactments, and it would be wholly inappropriate for the judiciary to meddle in such matters. Decisions on such matters by the judiciary land the administrative agencies in practical difficulties and make them bear the brunt of the decisions of the Court some of which are wholly oblivious to administrative needs and as such ill conceived.
(54)44. Moreover, if once the Courts take upon themselves the task of issuing ukases as to how administrative agencies should function, what is there to prevent them from issuing directions as to how the State Government or Central Government should administer the State and run the country?
In our opinion such an approach would not only disturb the delicate balance of powers between the three wings of the State, it would also strike at the very basis of our democratic polity which postulates that the governance of the country should be carried on by the executive enjoying the confidence of the legislature which is answerable and accountable to the people at the time of elections. Such an approach would in our opinion result in judicial oligarchy dethroning democratic supremacy.”
23. In Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and Another [(2018) 6 SCC 72], which pertains to alleged suspicious death of Brijgopal Harikishan http://www.judis.nic.in Loya, a District Judge belonging to Maharashtra Judiciary, a Public Interest 20 Litigation was filed by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India, praying for enquiry into the circumstances of the death of the said Judge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition and in paragraph No.98 has dealt with the issue relating to Public Interest Litigation and it is relevant to extract the same:
“98. The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this court and the High Courts are flooded with litigation and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. This court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law. There is a danger that the judicial http://www.judis.nic.in process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space.” 21
24. Initially, the concept of Public Interest Litigation came into being as poor and down trodden were not aware of the legal rights, rules and lack necessary resources to approach the Court and involve themselves in costly litigations and of-late, it became a tool for misuse, as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited decisions.
25. This Court has already pointed out that the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions are mainly targeted against the newly impleaded private respondent/10th respondent and either tenable or legal grounds have been raised by the writ petitioner seeking positive directions in the form of prayer sought for by them in these writ petitions.
26. In the considered opinion of the Court, a perusal of the materials placed in the form of typed set of documents as well as the submission made by the learned Advocate General would disclose that proper mechanism has been put in place, but at the same time, it is to be noted that the State Government is also spending considerable amount in making the Global Investors Meet, 2019 a grand success and the said effort should necessarily be transformed into good and proper investments, so as to develop http://www.judis.nic.in industrialization and generate employment especially for the local people 22 for their well being. Hence, it is necessary on the part of the fourth respondent to file a Status Report as to how many projects came into being on account of the Tamil Nadu Global Investors Meet, 2015, present stage of such projects, as well the MOUs reached and the agreements signed in pursuant to the present Global Investors' Meet, 2019 and generation of employment.
27. In the considered opinion of the Court, the Writ Petitions lack merit and substance and deserve dismissal and accordingly, both the Writ Petitions shall stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
For filing of Status Report of the fourth respondent, call on 10.06.2019.
[M.S.N., J.] [P.R.M., J.] 25.01.2019 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Jvm To
1.The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, 4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
http://www.judis.nic.in -23- 23
2.The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 437 'C' – Wing Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
3.The Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
4.The Additional Chief Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
5.Additional Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Special Officer, Global Investors Meet 2019, Chennai-9.
6.The Executive Vice Chairman, Tamil Nadu Industrial Guidance and Export Promotion Bureau, 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
7.Additional Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, No.29, Rajaji Salai, Corporate Bhawan, Ground Floor, Chennai-600 001.
8.Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Kailasapuram, Mylapore-600 004.
9.Commissioner of Police, No.132, Commissioner's Office Building, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
10.Mr.Rohit Rabindranath, Director, Zynergy Solar Products & Services Pvt. Ltd., rd http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Floor, Block-A, Bannari Amman Towers, No.29, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
24
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., and P.RAJAMANICKAM, J.
jvm Common Order in W.P.Nos.1039 and 1081 of 2019 25.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in