Madras High Court
Alagaapuram R.Mohan Raj vs The Secretary To Government Of on 20 December, 2004
Author: Markandey Katju
Bench: Markandey Katju
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 20/12/2004
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN
Writ Petition No.31670 of 2004
Alagaapuram R.Mohan Raj .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Secretary to Government of
Tamil Nadu
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
3. The Commissioner,
Salem City Municipal Corporation,
Salem.
4. The Executive Engineer (Planning)
Salem City Municipal Corporation
Salem.
5. The Deputy Director,
Local Planning Administration
Sait Extension,
Kumarasamypatti,
Salem 7.
6. The Deputy Director
Town & Country Planning
Salem City Municipal Corporation,
Sait Extension,
Kumarasamypatti,
Salem -7.
7. The Commissioner,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
New Judges Quarters,
Greenways Road,
Chennai 600 018. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the issue of writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
directing the seventh respondent to investigate the acts and omission of the
fourth respondent.
!For petitioner : Mr. K.M. Vijayan
Senior Counsel
for Mr. V. John Aquinas
For respondents: Mr. V.Raghupathy
1 and 2 Govt. Pleader
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by The Honourable the Chief Justice) This case purports to be a public interest litigation.
2. In the present case, the petitioner has not raised any grievance of any personal injury to him. All that he has alleged is that he was the President of Alagaapuram Panchayat and presently Honorary President of Salem District Lorry Drivers and Cleaners Association. He has prayed for enquiry against several officers of Salem Corporation.
3. In our opinion, this is not a "Public Interest Litigation" but a "Publicity Interest Litigation" and a "Private Interest Litigation". The whole purpose of such litigation is to harass and black mail. Time has come that this must be stopped, otherwise the High Court will be doing no other work except hearing the cases of this nature and genuine cases will not be heard.
4. In a very recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra- Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26269 of 2004 dated 14.12.2004, the Court has come down very heavily on public interest litigation which is filed with ulterior motive eg. black mailing. The Supreme Court in that decision observed:
" ... 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". The High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the last category. 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 borne out of wishful thinking. 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 vs. 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 vs. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R. Srinivas vs. R.M.Premchand (1994(6) SCC 620).
....
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 grievances 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 busybodies, 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 door of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the mind of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system.
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 considerations. 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.
.....
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. ..."
5. We were inclined to impose heavy costs for this vexatious and frivolous litigation which is only intended to black mail. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner requests for withdrawal of the writ petition, we desist from imposing costs but we dismiss the writ petition with a warning to the petitioner not to indulge in such malafide and frivolous litigation in future, failing which he will face serious consequences. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.38388 of 2004 for direction is dismissed.
Index:Yes Internet: Yes Vu To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation, Salem.
4. The Executive Engineer (Planning) Salem City Municipal Corporation Salem.
5. The Deputy Director, Local Planning Administration Sait Extension, Kumarasamypatti, Salem 7.
6. The Deputy Director Town & Country Planning Salem City Municipal Corporation, Sait Extension, Kumarasamypatti, Salem -7.
7. The Commissioner, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, New Judges Quarters, Greenways Road, Chennai 600 018.