Mrs.Prabha Sridevan, J.: A license is applied for and is under the process of being considered. The writ petitioner files what is said to be a “Public Interest Litigation” and prays for a mandamus to reject the application. The question boils down to whether such a prayer can be granted.

2. Mr. N. Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the application of the sixth respondent for the grant of Direct To Home (DTH) License should be rejected since it would violate Arts.38 and 39-C of the Constitution of India, and since the rule of law is not being followed in the processing of the said application, and in view of the presence of the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, who is the brother of Mr. Kalanidhi Maran, who is at the helm of the SUN TV Network of Companies, there is every chance of there being undue influence in the processing of the application, the entire process is vitiated by mala fides and bias and since there is imminent danger of the application being considered favourably violating the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, the petitioner is entitled to maintain a quia timet action. Learned counsel further submitted that though specific allegations have been made naming the Union Minister and his brother Mr. Kalanidhi Maran in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, neither of them has chosen to deny the allegations and therefore, the allegations stand unrebutted. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner, being a Member of Parliament who has already filed a Public Interest Litigation, which is pending, has the locus standi to bring to the notice of the Court when glaring violations of law are being perpetrated and he is also entitled to maintain this Public Interest Litigation. The learned counsel further submitted that though a letter has been given to the respondents to produce the relevant files, they had not produced them, which itself shows that not all is well. The learned counsel also submitted that even if the prayer in the writ petition is framed properly that cannot prevent this Court from granting the relief sought for, since the majesty of law must be upheld. Learned counsel relied on the following decisions in support of his submissions:

Nomenclature under which writ petition is filed is not relevant - Pepsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1988)5 S.C.C. 749. Neither the Supreme Court nor the High Court should dismiss a writ petition on a mere technicality or just because the proper relief is not asked for; the Courts have the power to mould the relief so as to meet the requirement of the case - Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1984)4 S.C.C. 251

Locus standi - Chairman, Railway Board v. Mrs. Chandrima Das, (2000)2 S.C.C. 465.

Scope and ambit of Public Interest Litigation - Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, (2003)7

S.C.C. 546, State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri, (1995) 1 S.C.C. 189, Indian Banks’ Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service, (2004)11 S.C.C. 1, and Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kalyan and Dombivali,(2004)11 S.C.C. 417.

Bias-Metropolitan Properties Company (F.G.C.) Limited v. Lannon, (1968)3 All E.R. 304 , Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C.2386, Dr. Subra-manian Swamy v. J.Jayalalitha, 1994 Writ L.R. 59, J.Jayalalitha v. T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner, 1993 Writ L.R. 34, J.Mohaparta and Company v. State of Orissa, (1984)4 S.C.C. 103, K.Chelliah v. Chairman, Industrial Financial Corporation of India, (1973)1 M.L.J. 3: A.I.R. 1973 Mad.122, A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1970)1 S.C.J. 381: A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 150 and Dr. G. Sarana v. Lucknow University, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2428 .

Mala fides - Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi,(1987)1 S.C.C. 227.

Effect of non-denial - C.S. Rowjee v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 962.

Non-production of records - R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document