Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 890
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN
S. Dharmaraj & Another
Versus
Government of Tamilnadu Rep.By Its Principal Secretary Chennai & Others
Writ Petition (MD)No.11617 of 2009 & Writ Petition (MD)No.13637 of 2009
Decided On : 26-02-2010
For the Petitioners:M.S. Suresh Kumar, K. Mahendran, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. P.S. Raman, Advocate General Assisted by R. Janakiramulu, Spl. Govt. Pleader, R2, K.M. Vijayan, Senior Counsel K. Muthu Gania Pandiyan, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for genuine public interest and prima facie evidence in public interest litigation, as well as the dismissal of frivolous petitions and imposition of costs.
Headnote:
Abuse of Power - Public Interest Litigation - Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Sections 3, 4, 5 - The court discussed the allegations of abuse of power by the 2nd respondent, including irregularities in the implementation of the Tamil Nadu Afforestation Project and illegal monetary gains in an afforestation scheme founded by the Government of Japan. The court highlighted the independent evaluations and ratings of the project, emphasizing the lack of prima facie evidence and the baseless nature of the allegations. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines on genuine public interest litigation and emphasized the lack of public interest in the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a comprehensive enquiry into the alleged abuse of power by the 2nd respondent, including scandalous and gross misconduct, irregular transfer orders, and illegal monetary gains. The court analyzed the allegations and previous writ petitions filed against the officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no public interest involved in the writ petitions and dismissed them, imposing costs on the petitioners for filing frivolous petitions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged abuse of power by the 2nd respondent, the maintainability of the writ petitions, and the lack of bona fides and public interest in the petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the lack of prima facie evidence and public interest in the writ petitions, citing the Supreme Court's guidelines on genuine public interest litigation. The court also highlighted the baseless nature of the allegations and the disgruntled reaction of affected individuals.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and costs were imposed on the petitioners for filing frivolous petitions.
PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J
Two writ petitions have been filed. Both for almost the same relief, namely, a direction to conduct a comprehensive enquiry into the acts of abuse of power for personal gains by the 2nd respondent in W.P.(MD)No.11617/2009, who is the 5th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.13637/2009. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.11617/2009 is a Councillor of Sattur Panchayat Union, while the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.13637/2009 is an Advocate and a Honorary Reporter of a magazine called "Paraparappu Seithi".
Both these writ petitions have been filed as public interest litigations.
2. Wewill refer to the 2nd/5th respondent as "Officer" for the sake of convenience.
3.The Officer is at present the Chairman of TAFCORN, a Public Sector Undertaking. Previously, he was the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. He had attained superannuation on 30.11.2009. According to the petitioners, he had committed scandalous and gross misconduct and he goes scot-free on his superannuation, if no interference is made. According to the petitioners, a detailed probe would open one of the books scams/frauds committed by any public officer. The grievance is that the 1st respondent had not taken seriously any complaint received against the Officer, because he is equally in the rank of Chief Secretary and for obvious reason, the 1st respondent is showing restraint in taking action.
4.The present writ petitions are not the first writ petitions filed against this Officer. One Muniyandi and another driver were charged with dereliction of duty and were awarded punishment. In W.P. (MD)No.6943 of 2009, one Muniyandi prayed for a mandamus to direct the State Government to enquire into the large scale amazing of wealth by the Officer. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to conduct an enquiry. An enquiry was conducted, which, according to the petitioner, was farcical and an order was passed by the Enquiry Officer clearing the name of the Officer. According to the petitioner, this is contrary to the facts on record. Once again, the same Muninyandi filed W.P.(MD)No.7327/2009 challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent in giving a clean chit and prayed for a detailed probe by CBI. According to the petitioner in WP(MD)No.11617/2009, as a counter blast, the said Muniyandi and another driver were charged with dereliction of duty and were awarded punishment. The petitioner alleges that because the Officer agreed to drop charges, the complainants withdrew the writ petitions and that this was a collusive formula. It is alleged that the officer had appointed Muniyandi as Ranger only to ensure that he withdrew the writ petition. It is alleged that the Officer has committed several acts involving a foreigner of Auroville Botanical Gardens, wherein there is gross violation of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Allegations are made regarding transfer orders issued by the Officer which were all irregular. It is also alleged that in an afforestation scheme founded by the Government of Japan, the Officer had made illegal monetary gains. On these allegations, the first writ petition, namely W.P.(MD) No.11617/2009 was filed.
5.Basically, the allegations in the 2nd writ writ petition are also the same.
6.The officer has filed a separate counter and the 1st respondent has also filed a separate counter.
7.On the side of the petitioners, Mr.K.Mahendran and Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel made their submissions. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General made his submissions on behalf of the 1st respondent and Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel, made his submissions on behalf of the 2nd respondent/officer.
8.In the counter filed by the State, it is stated that (a)while Muniyandi had made several allegations in the petition dated 20.11.2008, the Officer had given a detailed reply to this and requested the Government to permit him to initiate action against Muniyandi and also for permission to file a defamation case against him.
