1. Public interest litigation seeking mandamus to produce records of government advertisement expenditure alleged as wasteful. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2011 Supreme(SC) 35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., K.S.P. RADHAKRISHNA, SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.
Manzoor Ali Khan & Another
Versus
Union of India & Others
Writ Petition (C). No. 83 of 2005
Decided on : 10-01-2011
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioners:Dinesh Kr. Garg, V.P. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Manjit Singh, Additional Advocate General, Shankar Chillarge, Additional Government Advocate (Maharashtra) [S.W.A. Qadri, Rekha Pandey, S.S. Rawat, Ashok Bhan, Padmalakshimi Nagam, Arvind Kr. Sharma, Rahul Kaushik, Radha Rai, Sunita Sharma, Mukesh Verma, D.S. Mahra, Anil Katiyar, C.S. Khan, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Arun K. Sinha, Sanjay R. Hegde, Jatinder Kr. Bhatia, V.K. Verma, Sushma Suri, B. Krishna Prasad, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Rituraj Biswas, Anil Shrivastav, Riku Sarma (for M/s. Corporate Law Group), P.V. Dinesh, P. Rajesh, V.J. Jithin, Kh. Nobin Singh, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Avijit Bhattarchajee, Sarbani Kar, D.D. Purkayastha, Bidyabrata Acharyya, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bhowmick, S.C. Ghosh, Arun Mathur, Yousuf Khan, Avneesh Arputham (for M/s. Aruputham, Aruna & Co.), R. Sathish, S. Geetha, Sumita Hazarika, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Praburamasubramanian, Manoj K. Mishra, Rashmi Singh, Rajeev K. Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Pragyan Pradip Sharma, P.V. Yogeswaran, V.N. Raghupathy, Edward Belho, K. Enatoli Sema, Asha G. Nair, H. Wahi, Nupur Kanungo, A. Subhashini, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advocates.
For the Petitioners:Dinesh Kr. Garg, V.P. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Manjit Singh, Additional Advocate General, Shankar Chillarge, Additional Government Advocate (Maharashtra) [S.W.A. Qadri, Rekha Pandey, S.S. Rawat, Ashok Bhan, Padmalakshimi Nagam, Arvind Kr. Sharma, Rahul Kaushik, Radha Rai, Sunita Sharma, Mukesh Verma, D.S. Mahra, Anil Katiyar, C.S. Khan, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Arun K. Sinha, Sanjay R. Hegde, Jatinder Kr. Bhatia, V.K. Verma, Sushma Suri, B. Krishna Prasad, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Rituraj Biswas, Anil Shrivastav, Riku Sarma (for M/s. Corporate Law Group), P.V. Dinesh, P. Rajesh, V.J. Jithin, Kh. Nobin Singh, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Avijit Bhattarchajee, Sarbani Kar, D.D. Purkayastha, Bidyabrata Acharyya, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bhowmick, S.C. Ghosh, Arun Mathur, Yousuf Khan, Avneesh Arputham (for M/s. Aruputham, Aruna & Co.), R. Sathish, S. Geetha, Sumita Hazarika, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Praburamasubramanian, Manoj K. Mishra, Rashmi Singh, Rajeev K. Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Pragyan Pradip Sharma, P.V. Yogeswaran, V.N. Raghupathy, Edward Belho, K. Enatoli Sema, Asha G. Nair, H. Wahi, Nupur Kanungo, A. Subhashini, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advocates.
The court will not interfere with government expenditure on advertisements where detailed guidelines have been established by the relevant nodal agencies at both the Union and State levels.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Public Interest Litigation - Expenditure on advertisements by government and public sector undertakings - Challenge to the expenditure as wasteful and intended to enhance images of political leaders - Detailed guidelines framed by the nodal agency for advertising and visual publicity for the central government and by the departmental nodal agency for information in each state - No reason for judicial interference when such guidelines exist. (Para 2)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope - Interference not warranted when administrative guidelines are already in place. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed in public interest seeking a direction to produce records regarding expenditure on advertisements by the central government, state governments, and public sector undertakings, alleging that such expenditure is wasteful and used to promote political leaders.
Findings of Court:
Detailed guidelines have been framed by the nodal agency for advertising and visual publicity for the central government, and similarly, departmental guidelines exist via the nodal agencies for information in each state.
Issues: Whether the court should direct the production of expenditure records for government advertisements and challenge the authority of the central and state governments to incur such expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since guidelines have been formulated by the respective nodal agencies at both the central and state levels to govern advertising expenditure, there is no reason for the court to interfere.
Result: Writ petition stands dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued that government advertisement expenditure was wasteful and aimed at enhancing political leaders' images. (Para 1 )
3. Court held that detailed guidelines by DAVP and State Information Departments exist, and matter is covered by precedent. (Para 2 )
4. A public interest challenge to government advertisement expenditure fails when detailed guidelines exist and issue is covered by binding precedent. (Para 2 )
5. Writ petition dismissed. (Para 2 )
6. Can a public interest petition challenging government advertisement expenditure succeed when guidelines exist and the issue is covered by precedent?
No, the court will not interfere if detailed guidelines are already in place and the matter is covered by a binding judgment. (Para 2 )
Judgment :
1. The present petition is filed in public interest. It seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Union of India, various States in India and public sector undertakings (PSUs) to produce the respective records regarding expenditure incurred for giving advertisements. According to the petitioners, the said expenditure is a wasteful expenditure. According to the petitioners, such advertisements are given to enhance images of political leaders. In short, the petitioners seek to challenge the authority of the Union of India and various States as also PSUs, in the matter of their incurring expenditure on advertisements.
2. We find no merit in this petition. Firstly, we find that detailed guidelines have been framed by the Union of India – Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP), which is the nodal agency of the Government of India for advertising by various ministries and organizations of the Government of India. Similarly, in each State there is a Department of Information which is the nodal agency for releasing advertisements. Since guidelines have been framed by DAVP as well as the Director of Information in each of the States, we see no reason to interfere. The matter is also squarely covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar v. Balkrishna Jagannath Kinikar (AIR 1961 Bom 167).
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
