Madras High Court
S.Sekaran vs The Chief Secretary on 22 February, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 (NOC) 484 (MAD.), AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 1503
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.No.5124 of 2019
S.Sekaran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Home Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Director General of Police,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd
respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated
26.12.2018 and to further direct the respondents to follow the
due process of law against erring officials.
For Petitioner : Ms.Lita Srinivasan
http://www.judis.nic.in -----
2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Claiming himself to be a press reporter, petitioner has sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, respondents 1 and 2 respectively, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.12.2018 and to direct them to follow due process of law, against erring officials.
2. Supporting the prayer sought for, petitioner has contended that in December, 2018, the Hon'ble Law Minister, Government of Tamil Nadu, has made a press statement that the Government have permitted retirement of Mr.A.G.Ponn Manickavel, irrespective of pending CB-CID enquiry, based on the High Court order.
3. Petitioner has contended that he had verified the authenticity of the statement made by the Hon'ble Law Minister, but, to his shock and surprise, there is no such High Court order allowing the said Police Officer to retire, pending enquiry.
According to the petitioner, action of the Government relieving a dishonest officer is barred by law and is an illegal precedent by http://www.judis.nic.in 3 the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has averred that retirement of such officers would facilitate errant officials who indulge in corruption and other illegal activities and subsequently enjoy a peaceful retirement.
4. It is based on the statement of the Hon'ble Law Minister, Government of Tamil Nadu, said to have been reported in December, 2018, petitioner has made a representation dated 26.12.2018 to the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai respectively. As the said representation remains unanswered, petitioner has sought for relief as stated supra.
5. Ms.Lita Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Criminal Appeal Nos.1586-1589 of 2007 between A.G.Ponn Manickavel vs Bommi and Others. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an enquiry into the alleged detention of some persons in Vallasaravakkam Police Station was ordered against Mr.A.G.Ponn Manickavel and that CB-
CID enquiry is still pending against him, though, subsequently on http://www.judis.nic.in 4 06.04.2017, Criminal Appeals were disposed of with liberty to the parties to appear before this Court.
6. According to the petitioner, CB-CID enquiry ordered is still pending. Ms.Lita Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even a learned Additional Advocate General, Government of Tamil Nadu, who appeared in another writ petition relating to the investigation of Idol theft cases, submitted that CB-CID enquiry against Mr.A.G.Ponn Manickavel is still pending.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no order of this Court in any writ petition permitting Mr.A.G.Ponn Manickavel to retire from service and that the same has been verified.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
9. News item stated to have been reported in Daily Thanthi http://www.judis.nic.in 5 dated 21.12.2018 is reproduced hereunder:
"ahUila ifg;ghitahfnt bray;gLfpwhh; bghd; khzpf;fnty; neh;ikahdth;d vd;W ahh; brhd;dJ?
rl;lj;Jiw mikr;rh; rp/tp/rz;Kfk; gugug;g[ Fw;wr;rhl;L:
bghd; khzpf;fnty; neh;ikahdth; vd;W ahh; brhd;dJ vd;Wk;. ahUilaa ifg;ghitahfnth mth; bray;gLfpwhh; vd;Wk; rl;lj;Jiw mikr;rh; rp/tp/rz;Kfk; Fw;wr; rhl;oa[s;shh;/ rl;lj;Jiw mikr;rh; rp/tp/rz;Kfk; brd;idapy; epUgh;fSf;F new;W ngl;o mspj;jhh;/ mg;nghJ mth; TwpajhtJ !;blh;iyl; Miy !;blh;iyl; Miy ve;j epiyapYk; jpwf;ff;TlhJ vd;gJ jhd; jkpHf murpd; epiyg;ghL. !;blh;iyl; Miy K:lg;gl;lJ jhd; ,jw;fhf filrp tiu jkpHf muR epr;rakhf nghuhLk;/ me;j Miy jpwg;gjw;fhd ve;j tha;g;iga[k; ,e;j muR tH';fhJ/ muR bfhs;if Kot[ vLj;J jhd; ,e;j Miyia K:oa[s;sJ/ nkfjhJ gpur;rpidia bghWj;jtiuapy; fhtphp ePh;gLifapy; ve;j fl;olk; fl;odhYk;. mjpy; ve;j jpl;lj;ij bray;gLj;jpdhYk; rk;ge;jg;gl;Ls;s khepy';fSld; fye;J ngr ntz;Lk;/ ve;j khepyk; ghjpf;fg;gLfpwnjh? me;j khepyj;jpd; cj;juit bgw;W jhd; bray;gLj;j Koa[k; vd;W Rg;hPk; nfhh;l;L bjspthf jPhg; ;g[ mspj;Js;sJ/ mjdhy; jhd; eh';fs; Rg;hPk; nfhh;l;oy; nky; KiwaPL bra;J ,Uf;fpnwhk;/ 7 ngh; tpLjiy 7 jkpHh;fs; tpLjiyapy; fth;duf;F jkpHf muR ghpe;Jiu bra;J ,Uf;fpwJ/ Fwpg;gpl;l fhyj;jpw;Fs; fth;dh; Kot[ vLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W eh';fs; vjph;ghh;ff; pnwhk;/ me;j Koit bghWj;J muR KobtLf;Fk;/ v';fis bghWj;jtiuapy; rl;lj;jpd;go midj;J eltof;ifa[k; vLj;J ,Uf;fpnwhk;/ Kot[ fth;dh; ifapy;
jhd; ,Uf;fpwJ/ X/gd;dPh;bry;tk; jk;gp fl;rpapy; ,Ue;J ePf;fg;gl;lJ Fwpj;J nfl;fpwPhf; s;/ jk;gpahf ,Ue;jhYk;. mz;zdhf ,Ue;jhYk;. ehdhf ,Ue;jhYk; rhp fl;rpf;F tpnuhjkhf bray;gl;lhy;. mth;fs; fl;rpapy; http://www.judis.nic.in ,Ue;J ePff; g;gLthh;fs;/ 6 neh;ikahdtuh?
bghd; khzpf;fnty; neh;ikahdth; vd;W ahh; brhd;dJ? xU muR mjpfhhpahf ,Ug;gth; cs;nehf;fj;Jld; bray;glf;TlhJ/ mth; fPH; gzpahw;Wgth;fs; midtUk; kd cisr;ryhy;; ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sdh;/ j';fis gzp bra;atplhky; jLg;gjhft[k;. j';fis bfhLikg;gLj;Jtjht[k; mth;fs; bjhptpf;fpwhh;fs;/ tHf;if nkw;ghh;itapLtjw;Fjhd; mtUf;F mjpfhuk; ,Uf;fpwJ/ Mdhy; me;j tHf;if mg;go tprhhpa[';fs;. ,g;go tprhhpa[';fs; vd;W Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fis ,g;go gjpt[ bra;a[';fs; vd;W brhy;Yfpw mjpfhuk; nghyP!; o/$p/gp/f;nf ,y;iy/ tprhuiz mjpfhhpf;F jhd; me;j mjpfhuk; ,Uf;fpwJ/ bghd; khzpf;fnty; kPJ nghyPrhh; TWk; Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; ftdpff; g;gl ntz;oa xd;W/ bghd; khzpf;fnty; kPJ gy;ntW Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs; eph;thfj;jpy; ,Uf;fpwJ/ ,Ue;jhYk; Infhh;l;L cj;juthy;. mth; me;j Fw;wr;rhl;oy; ,Ue;J jg;gpj;J gzp Xa;t[ bgw;W ,Uf;fpwhh;/ mnj rhjhuz fhtyUf;F Fw;wr;rhl;L ,Ue;jhy; mth; gzp Xa;t[fF ; tpl;L ,Ug;ghh;fsh? cah; mjpfhhp vd;w nfhjhtpny Infhh;l;L Jiza[ld; jd; kPJ ,Uf;Fk; Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;F gjpy; brhy;yhky; gzp Xa;t[ bgw;W ,Uf;fpwhh;/ ,jw;F mth; vd;w brhy;fpwhh;? neh;ikahd mjpfhhp vd;why; mth; kPJ cs;s Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;F gjpy; brhy;ypapUf;f ntz;oaJjhnd? me;j Fw;wr;rhl;oy; ,Ue;J jd;id epU:gpj;J ,Uf;f ntz;Lk; my;yth?
ifg;ghitahf bray;gLfpwhh;
rpiy flj;jy; jLg;g[ tHf;fpy; mth; epakpf;fg;gl;ljpy; ,Ue;J ,Jtiu ve;j Fw;w';fis fz;Lgpoj;J ,Uf;fpwhh? vj;jid rpiyfis fz;Lgpoj;J ,Ur;fpwhh;/ vj;jid ngiu ifJ bra;J ,Uf;fpwhh;fs;? ,bjy;yhk; mth; btspg;gLj;j ntz;Lk;/ ,Jtiuf;Fk; ve;j gzpiaa[k; bra;atpy;iy/ ehd; cah; mjpfhhpf;Fk; mo gzpakhl;nld;. muRf;Fk; mo gzpa khl;nld; vd;why; vd;d mh;jj; k;/ mth; Vnjh cs;nehf;fj;Jld; jpl;lkpl;L ahUf;nfh ifg;ghitahf bray;gl;L bfhz;oUf;fpwhh;/ ,t;thW mth; Twpdhh;/"
ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the above:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 7 "He is functioning as an hand operated doll of someone else who told that Pon Manickavel is an upright/straight forward personality?
Law Minister C.V. Shnmugam’s furore allegations Chennai, dated 21.12.2018.
Law Minister C.V. Shanmugam has alleged that Pon.Manickavel is functioning as an hand operated doll of someone else. He has also alleged as to who has told that Pon Manickavel is an upright/straight forward personality?
Law Minister C.V.Shanmugam was speaking to press report in Chennai, Yesterday. At that time he told the following:-
Sterlite Factory Tamilnadu Government’s firm stand is that the sterlite factory should not be opened at any cost closure of the sterlite factory is full and final. Tamilnadu Government will fight till the end to ensure the above closure. This Government will never give any chance to open that factory. The Government has closed this factory only after taking the policy decision. With regard to the Meghadadhu dispute, if any construction is taken up or any new scheme is implemented in the Cauvery Waterbed/delta area, the concerned States are to be consulted. Honourable Supreme http://www.judis.nic.in Court has given the clear judgment that any new 8 scheme shall be implemented only after obtaining the permission/order from the State which is affected by the new scheme. That is why we have filed the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Release of 7 persons Tamilnadu Government have submitted its recommendations to the Governor regarding the release of 7 Tamilians. We except that the Governor would take a decision within a reasonable time. Government would decide as per that decision. We have taken all the actions as per the law. The final decision is in the hands of the Governor.
You are asking about the discharge /removal of the brother of O.Pannerselvam from the party, Whenever it may be whether younger brother or elder brother or even myself would be removed/dismissed from the party if they functioned against the party.
Is an upright/straight forward person?
Who told that Pon Manickavel is an
upright/straight forward personality? A
Government Officer should not function
intentionally with ulterior motives. The
Subordinate officers working under him have been affected by high stress and depressed mind.
http://www.judis.nic.in They have informed that they are being 9 obstructed from doing their duties and that are being treated cruelly. Pon Manickavel is empowered only to supervise the cases. But there is no power even to the D.G.P. himself to instruct the subordinates to investigate the cases in a particular method as per his decision. The said power is vested only with the investigating officer. The allegations leveled against Pon Manickavel by the police men are to be looked into thoroughly.
There are various allegations against Pon Manickavel in the administration. Even then he was safeguard from those allegations and hence also retired from service because of the Hon'ble High Court orders will any ordinary policeman be allowed to retire if he is facing such allegations? He has retired as an higher officer with the help of the Hon'ble High Court without replying to the allegations against him. What is his reply to this statement? Why he has not replied to the allegations leveled against him if he is an upright police officer? Should he not have absolved himself from the said allegations?
Functioning as the hand operated Doll What are the crimes he has investigated and completed sine from he was appointed in the http://www.judis.nic.in Idol smuggling case? How many idols/statues he 10 has discovered and confiscated till date? How many persons he has arrested? he should disclose all these details. He has not done any work till date.
I will not obey to any higher officer. I will not obey to the Government. I will not obey to anybody. If he is maintaining such an attitude what is the meaning of such acts? He is functioning the hand operated Doll of somebody after planning thoroughly and with intention and ulterior motives.
The Law Minister stated as above."
10. Based on the news report, the petitioner seems to have made a representation dated 26.12.2018, to the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary, Government of India, respondents 1 & 2 herein respectively and that the same is reproduced hereunder:
"From, S.Sekharan M/A-49 years S/O Surulimani, No 3, Duraiswamy 1st Street, Korattur, Chennai-600080.
To The Chief secretary, Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600009.
Sir, http://www.judis.nic.in Ref:- Illegal retirement of an officer who is 11 under criminal enquiry on the guise of an invisible court order.
I am a press editor and I always ensure keeping people informed of justified news about society. Last week thy Honorable Law Minister of Tamilnadu state C.V.Shanmugam had made a press release stating that they had made an officer named IG Ponmanikavel to retire irrespective of pending CBCID enquiry of his dishonest behavior based on an High court Order.
Since such News I had verified the authenticity of such information revealed by the Honorable minister. To my shock and surprise there was no such High Court order or verdict allowing an officer to retire pending criminal enquiry. Moreover, the act of reliving a dishonest official when explicitly barred by law is a violent precedent set by this Govt., irrelevantly blaming a court order which does not even exist.
I am really concerned about the wrong precedent set by this govt, facilitating errant officials to conduct corruption and other illegal activity, subsequent to which they may enjoy a peaceful retirement. Thus the act is illegal and would amend the social justice, thereby may lead to dire illegality in the society as the check over the Govt. official is being illegally relaxed and set as precedent to be followed.
http://www.judis.nic.in I hereby as a dutiful citizen would demand for 12 the reasonable explanation from the Govt. for tolerance of officials’ criminality elevating them above the law of land. Further in absence of any justified reason and pending Criminal enquiry I request thy highness to recuperate the retirement, illegally given to the officer Ponmanikavel and abide every citizen of India equal and subjective to the law of Land. I would be constrained to take appropriate legal action on failure of the governance to comply with my representation as aforementioned within 10 days from the date of receipt of this representation.
Thanking you, Yours truly, (S.Sekharan) ******** From, S.Sekharan M/A-49 years S/O Surulimani, No 3, Duraiswamy 1st Street, Korattur, Chennai-600080.
To The Home Secretary, Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Cheinni-600009.
Sir, Ref:- Illegal retirement of an officer who is under criminal enquiry on the guise of an invisible court order.
I am a press editor and I always ensure http://www.judis.nic.in 13 keeping people informed of justified news about society. Last week thy Honorable Law Minister of Tamilnadu state C.V.Shanmugam had made a press release stating that they had made an officer named IG Ponmanikavel to retire irrespective of pending CBCID enquiry of his dishonest behavior based on an High court Order.
Since such News I had verified the authenticity of such information revealed by the Honorable minister. To my shock and surprise there was no such High Court order or verdict allowing an officer to retire pending criminal enquiry. Moreover, the act of reliving a dishonest official when explicitly barred by law is a violent precedent set by this Govt., irrelevantly blaming a court order which does not even exist.
I am really concerned about the wrong precedent set by this govt, facilitating errant officials to conduct corruption and other illegal activity, subsequent to which they may enjoy a peaceful retirement. Thus the act is illegal and would amend the social justice, thereby may lead to dire illegality in the society as the check over the Govt. official is being illegally relaxed and set as precedent to be followed.
I hereby as a dutiful citizen would demand for http://www.judis.nic.in the reasonable explanation from the Govt. for 14 tolerance of officials’ criminality elevating them above the law of land. Further in absence of any justified reason and pending Criminal enquiry I request thy highness to recuperate the retirement, illegally given to the officer Ponmanikavel and abide every citizen of India equal and subjective to the law of Land. I would be constrained to take appropriate legal action on failure of the governance to comply with my representation as aforementioned within 10 days from the date of receipt of this representation.
Thanking you, Yours truly, (S.Sekharan)"
11. Before adverting to the above submissions based on the newspaper reports, let us consider few decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, on the admissibility of newspapers reports:
(i) A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in A.S.M.Kumar v.
State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 399, to which, one of us, is a party, has considered the following judgments, "8.The question of admissibility of the newspaper reports came up for consideration in Samant N.Balkrishna and another Vs.George Fernandez and other reported in 1969 (3) SCC 238 at paragraph 26, the Apex Court observed that http://www.judis.nic.in "A newspaper item without any 15 further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second hand evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publish it. In this process truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible."
9. As regards nature and admissibility of a newspaper report, the Supreme Court in Lakmi Raj Shetty and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1988 (3) SCC 319, opined that "...We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence http://www.judis.nic.in Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated 16 as proved of the facts reported therein."
10. In Quamarul Islam Vs. S.K.Kanta reported in 1994 (1) SCC 452, the question as to whether mere production of the copy of the newspaper be treated as proof of the report of the speech (news item) contained therein came up for consideration. The Apex Court at Paragraph 48 of the judgment held that, "48.Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. Since, in this case, neither the reporter who heard the speech and sent the report was examined nor even his reports produced, the production of the newspaper by the Editor and publisher, PW4 by itself cannot amount to proving the contents of the newspaper reports. Newspaper, is at the best secondary evidence of its contents and is not admissible in evidence without proper proof of the contents under the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial Judge could not treat the newspaper reports as duly 'proved' only by the production of the copies of the newspaper. The election petitioner http://www.judis.nic.in also examined Abrar Razi, PW5, who was 17 the polling agent of the election petitioner and a resident of the locality in support of the correctness of the reports including advertisements and messages as published in the said newspaper. We have carefully perused his testimony and find that his evidence also falls short of proving the contents of the reports of the alleged speeches or the messages and the advertisements, which appeared in different issues of the newspaper. Since, the maker of the report which formed basis of the publications, did not appear in the court to depose about the facts as perceived by him, the facts contained in the published reports were clearly inadmissible. No evidence was led by the election petitioner to prove the contents of the messages and the advertisements as the original manuscript of the advertisements or the messages was not produced at the trial. No witness came forward to prove the receipt of the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the messages or the publication of the same in accordance with the manuscript. There is no satisfactory and reliable evidence on the record to even establish that the same were http://www.judis.nic.in actually issued by IUML or MYL, ignoring for 18 the time being, whether or not the appellant had any connection with IUML or MYL or that the same were published by him or with his consent by any other person or published by his election agent or by any other person with the consent of his election agent."
11.The Supreme Court dealing with a "pro bono publico" litigation in B.P.Singhal Vs.State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2004 (13) SCC 673, wherein the petitioner sought for a transfer of an investigation from Tamil Nadu State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation, opined that:
"the petition is lacking in material particulars. All the averments made in the petition are based, by and large, on news reports and not on personal knowledge.
The petition does not state that the petitioner has taken any care to verify himself the correctness of the averments made."
12.In yet another decision in Dr.B.Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others reported in 2004 (3) SCC 363 dealing with a public interest litigation, challenging the propriety of the third respondent http://www.judis.nic.in therein for being considered for appointment as a 19 Judge, the Supreme Court while expressing its anguish found that:
"the petitioner has no where stated that he has personal knowledge of the allegations made against R3. He does not even aver that he made any effort to find out whether the allegations have any basis. He only refers to the representation of Ram Sarup and some other paper cuttings of news items. It is too much to attribute authenticity or creditability to any information or fact merely because, it found publication in a newspaper or journal or magazine or any other form of communication, as though it is gospel truth. It needs no reiteration that newspaper reports per se do not constitute legally acceptable evidence."
13. In matters relating to public interest litigation, the Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that 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 http://www.judis.nic.in balance between two conflicting interests; i) 20 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. Reference can be made to the recent decision of the Apex Court in Holicow Pictures Pvt., Ltd., Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and others reported in 2008 (1) CTC 711 (Para 20)."
(ii) After considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, at Paragraph 16, the Hon'ble Division Bench has observed as follows:
"It is now well settled that a news item published in the newspaper are only hearsay and no judicial notice can be taken unless supported by further http://www.judis.nic.in authentic evidence. Though the parameters of public 21 interest litigation have been indicated by the Supreme Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, the petitioner, without verifying the authenticity or otherwise of the news items, has chosen to resort to the extra ordinary jurisdiction. The Public Interest Litigation intended to ameliorate the grievance of the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated, should not be misused. Before maintaining a cause before the Court one should prove that there is concrete and credible basis, not withstanding the credentials claimed of the person moving the courts."
12. In line with the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court, Madras has issued a notification in SRO C-
2/2010 dated 26.07.2010, which is extracted hereunder:-
"No. SRO C-2/2010.
By virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of India and of all other powers hereunto enabling, the High Court makes the following Rules to regulate Public Interest Litigations (PIL) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
Every Public Interest Litigation must be filed in accordance with the following rules:
1. Every PIL must indicate that the petitioner has http://www.judis.nic.in no personal interest in the case. If he has any 22 personal interest, he must disclose the same. In the event of the High Court finding the claim as frivolous or vexatious, the PIL shall be dismissed with exemplary cost.
2. If the PIL is filed on behalf of a class of persons, the details of the persons for whose benefit the PIL is filed, must be indicated. If it is a society or association of persons, the writ petitioner must enclose a resolution from such society or association of persons, authorising the petitioner to file the writ petition and if the body is duly registered with competent authority, a copy of the bye-laws of the said body authorising the petitioner to file the writ petition, shall be enclosed.
3. If the petitioner has filed any PIL earlier, the details of the petition, and the final order, if any, passed in that petition, the relief granted and costs, if any, awarded, shall be indicated. No Public Interest Litigation Petition will be entertained in respect of civil disputes between individuals or in service matters.
The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will pay the costs, if any, if it is found to be intended for personal gain or oblique motive.
4. The petitioner must disclose whether he has filed the petition out of his own funds or from other sources. If it is the latter, the particulars should be http://www.judis.nic.in given.
235. The petitioner must state in the affidavit that to his knowledge, no PIL arising on the same issue, has been filed anywhere.
6. The affidavit filed by the petitioner must contain the averments that he has filed the writ petition based on his information and his personal knowledge. If he has filed the writ petition based on an information received from any other source, he must clearly indicate the source. If it is a newspaper report, the affidavit shall clearly state as to whether the deponent has verified the facts by personally visiting the place or talking to any responsible person or Reporter or Editor of the newspaper concerned.
7. If the petitioner has given any representation to any authority, a copy of the same shall be filed in the typed set of papers along with reply, if any, received from the authority. He shall file the proof of service of representation before the Court.
The above rules will not be applicable to the Public Interest Litigations taken on file by the High Court"
13. First of all, instant writ petition is filed purely based on news item, wherein the Hon'ble Minister for law is stated to have addressed that there are complaints pending against Mr.A.G.Ponn Manickavel with the Government administration but even then on the basis of the orders of this Court, he had escaped and retired http://www.judis.nic.in 24 from service.
14. Newspaper is stated to have reported that with the help of the Hon'ble High Court and without replying to the allegations against him, Mr.A.G.Ponn Manickavel, has retired from service.
15. Petitioner in paragraph No.4 of the supporting affidavit has contended that he had verified the authenticity of such statement of the Hon'ble Law Minister. There is no materials from whom and from where the petitioner has verified the authenticity of the statement made by the Hon'ble Minister. The petitioner has made a representation on the basic of a news item and sought for Writ of Mandamus to consider such representation.
Having regard to the standard of proof required in a public interest writ petition, as repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the above said judgements, mere representation or averments made in a writ petition seeking for prerogative Writ of Mandamus cannot be demanded as a matter of right by the petitioner. At this juncture, we also deem it fit to state that the averments do not satisfy the circular of the High Court extracted supra.
http://www.judis.nic.in 25
16. Further, explaining the distinction between the pleadings and proof, required in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the pleadings in the Civil Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.13, in Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in 1988 (4) SCC 534, held as follows:
".... In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evident which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter- affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter- affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the http://www.judis.nic.in evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded 26 and annexed to it."
17. G.O.Ms.No.1394, Home (Police 1) Department, dated 30.11.2018, permitting Mr.A.G.Ponn Manickavel to retire from service is extracted hereunder:
"ABSTRACT Indian Police Service - Thiru A.g.Ponn Manickavel IPS - Inspector General of Police, Railways, Chennai & Full Additional Charge Idol Wing CID Chennai - Retirement from service on attaining the ae of superannuation on 30.11.2018 AN - Orders - Issued.
-----------------------------------------------------
HOME (POLICE - I) DEPARTMENT
G.O.(D) No.1394 Dated:30.11.2018
tpsk;gp fhu;jpjpif 14
jpUts;Stu; Mz;L 2049
Read:
From the Director General of Police letter Rc.No.A-30GB I(I)/45/2018-Gb1 (DGP), dated 26.11.2018.
***** ORDER:
Thiru A.G.Ponn Manickavel IPS Inspector General of Police, Railways, Chennai & Full Additional Charge, Idol Wing CID, Chennai shall retire from the Indian Police Service on attaining the age of superannuation on the afternoon of 30.11.2018.
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) http://www.judis.nic.in 27 NIRANJAN MARDI ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT"
18. Ms.Lita Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite a pending enquiry, Mr.A.G.Ponn Manickavel has been permitted to retire and that the same would set a bad precedent and facilitate errant and corrupt officials to enjoy a peaceful retirement.
19. Though Ms.Lita Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that during the course of hearing of another writ petition, a learned Additional Advocate General of this Court has submitted that CB-CID enquiry is still pending, but the same has not even been averred in the instant writ petition.
20. Even taking for granted that CB-CID enquiry is pending, ultimately, it is the decision of the Government, either to permit the officer to retire or not to retire him from service.
21. Contention of the petitioner is that an enquiry is still pending, is not substantiated by any materials before this Court.
Though petitioner has contended that enquiry is still pending, he has not chosen to obtain information from the competent http://www.judis.nic.in 28 authority as to whether any such enquiry is still pending or not.
The petitioner failed to produce any material in this regard.
22. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court on the admissibility of a newspaper report credibility and the nature of evidence, as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is purely hearsay. Such news items cannot be taken as a base, for filing a public interest litigations, unless and until, it is supported by materials.
23. Though, Ms.Lita Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even a postcard is entertained as writ petition whenever it is brought to the notice of the Court, we wish to state that it is the prerogative of the Courts to consider the nature of the grievance expressed and the public interest involved, to entertain a case. This reason and logic cannot be made applicable to a person who approach the Court claiming himself to be a public interest litigant.
24. Statement of the Hon'ble Law Minister reported in a news item, cannot be the basis for declaring G.O.Ms.No.1394, Home (Police 1) Department, dated 30.11.2018, as illegal.
http://www.judis.nic.in 29
25. In view of the foregoing discussions, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
[S.M.K., J.] [S.P., J.] 22.02.2019 Index : Yes Internet : Yes kk/dm To
1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
http://www.judis.nic.in 30 S.MANIKUMAR, J.
AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
kk/dm W.P.No.5124 of 2019 22.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in