BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.08.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.(MD)No.13475 of 2014 O.T.Kombu Maharaja ..Petitioner versus 1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Secretary, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
3.The Chief Engineer, (General).Public Works Department, Cheapuck, Chennai-5.
4.The District Collector, Tuticorin.
Tuticorin District.
5.The Chief Engineer, P.W.D.- Irrigation, Vaigai Illam, Madurai Region, Madurai.
6.The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D ?.
Irrigation, Thamiraparani River Basin, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
7.The Executive Engineer, & Public Information Officer, P.W.D., Korampallam River Basin, Tuticorin District.
8.The Divisional Engineer, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.
9.Seik Oliyudeen 10.Vijayaraj 11.Somasundaram 12.Vinkataraman 13.The Director, Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Chennai -28..Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to initiate action against the respondent Nos.9,10,11& 12 for their act of malpractice committed under M.P.Fund of Rs.2 crores in the construction of flood protection wall in the Korampallam River Basin during the year 2012-2013, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 07.06.2014, within a stipulated time.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.Baskar Mathuram For respondents : Mr.N.Manohar 1 to 8 Special Government Pleader :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN,J.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2.This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to initiate action against the respondent Nos.9, 10, 11 & 12 for their act of malpractice committed under M.P.fund to the tune of Rs.2 crores in the construction of flood protection wall in Korampallam River Basin, during the year 2012-2013, based on his representation, dated 07.06.2014, within a stipulated time.
3.The petitioner, who claims to be the President of Periakulam Tank Irrigation Farmers Association, Ottapidaram, Tuticorin District, has filed this Writ Petition, as a Public Interest Litigation, stating that the respondents 9 to 12, without putting up construction of Flood Protection Wall at Periakulam Tank, Korampallam River Basin, have swindled a sum of Rs.2 crores, by producing fabricated documents.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had obtained a list of Completed Works during 2012-13 under M.P.fund under the Right to Information Act, by which it is found that the list of works, which are stated to be undertaken, were already done under various schemes of Tamil Nadu Government Public Fund, M.L.A.fund and District Panchayat Fund, and the respondents 9 to 12 by producing fabricated documents, as if those constructions were newly undertaken and completed by them, have swindled a sum of Rs.2 crores.
In this regard, the petitioner has also made representations to the respondents 1 to 6 and 13.
Since the Public money have been swindled, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition, as a Public Interest Litigation, with the above said prayer.
5.On perusal of the records available, we do not find any reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner.
The allegations made by the petitioner had not been substantiated with sufficient records.
Further there is no substantial evidence placed before this Court to show that the list of works have already been done under the other schemes and the respondents 9 to 12 have swindled the public money by producing fabricated documents.
6.At this juncture, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal v.
B.S.Chaufal reported in (2010) 2 MLJ1127(SC).wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the scope of the Public Interest Litigation, has given directions so as to preserve the purity and sanctity of the Public Interest Litigation, which are as follows: (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous consideration.
(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.
Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months.
The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L.(4) The Court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The Court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury.
The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.
(8) The Court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.".
7.Keeping in mind the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the petitioner had not made out a case to issue any direction, as observed supra.
Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8.In fine, the writ petition stands dismissed.
No costs.
To 1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Secretary, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
3.The Chief Engineer, (General).Public Works Department, Cheapuck, Chennai-5.
4.The District Collector, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
5.The Chief Engineer, P.W.D.- Irrigation, Vaigai Illam, Madurai Region, Madurai.
6.The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D ?.
Irrigation, Thamiraparani River Basin, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
7.The Executive Engineer, & Public Information Officer, P.W.D., Korampallam River Basin, Tuticorin District.
8.The Divisional Engineer, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.
9.The Director, Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Chennai -28.