Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.K. GANGULY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
S. Manokaran
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Chief Secretary & Others
W.P. No.18439 of 2008 and M.P. Nos.1 to 3 of 2008
Decided on: 10-12-2008
Public Interest Litigation - Violation of Court Orders - Writ Petition No. 15156 of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 15824 of 2008 - Sections 145(1) Cr.P.C., Article 215 of the Constitution of India, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 154(3) CrPC, Section 36 CrPC, Section 156(3) CrPC, Section 200 CrPC - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking a direction to constitute a Committee to examine the violation of court orders and to pay compensation to the affected people. The court emphasized that the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegations and that the appropriate course of action for any violation of court orders is to file a contempt application. The court also highlighted the need to discourage the practice of filing writ petitions for grievances that can be addressed through alternative remedies. The court further emphasized that the power to order an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation should only be exercised if the material on record discloses a prima facie case calling for investigation. The court also cautioned against entertaining public interest litigations that are not genuine and emphasized the need to weed out such petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to constitute a Committee to examine the violation of court orders and to pay compensation to the affected people. The petitioner alleged malafides against public servants and sought directions for various actions including the deposit of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs into the Court for disbursing it as compensation to the affected people.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegations and that the appropriate course of action for any violation of court orders is to file a contempt application. The court emphasized the need to discourage the practice of filing writ petitions for grievances that can be addressed through alternative remedies. The court also highlighted the need to weed out petitions that are not genuine public interest litigations.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the substantiation of allegations against public servants, the appropriate course of action for any violation of court orders, and the need to discourage the practice of filing writ petitions for grievances that can be addressed through alternative remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the appropriate course of action for any violation of court orders is to file a contempt application. The court also highlighted the need to discourage the practice of filing writ petitions for grievances that can be addressed through alternative remedies. The court further cautioned against entertaining public interest litigations that are not genuine and emphasized the need to weed out such petitions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and the associated miscellaneous petitions. The court held that the writ petition will have to be dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.
K. Chandru, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. This writ petition is filed for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to constitute a Committee consisting of senior I.A.S. and I.P.S. cadre Officers who are known for their integrity and commitment within two days and direct them to visit the Salem City and examine the vital aspects of the violation against the order of this court made in W.P. No.15156 of 2008 and W.P. No.15824 of 2008 dated 26. 2008 and 07.07.2008 respectively and submit a status report within three days with regard to the role of the 8th respondent and such other persons in crippling the district administration, police as well as revenue, which resulted in violation of orders of this Court.
3. A further direction is sought to the third respondent to verify in person as to how the police machinery in Salem City has become ineffective and why the DIG of Police, Salem and the Commissioner of Police, Salem City, who are fifth and sixth respondents respectively and their subordinates defaulted and neglected in exercising their power in the burning situation indicated by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition as well as in earlier writ petitions in W.P. Nos.15156 and 15824 of 2008 and submit a status report within five days.
4. The petitioner also sought for further direction to the first respondent to pay a just and reasonable amount as compensation to the victims of lawlessness generated by the public servants functioning under the first respondent and also for a direction to respondents 9 and 10 to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs into this Court as a token arrangement for disbursing it as compensation to the affected people within three days.
5. This petition is filed by one S. Manokaran, a member of the Bar who also claims to be the All India General Secretary of Indian Association of Peoples Lawyers. When this writ petition came up for orders on 37. 2008, this Court recorded the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader that there will be no demolition of the building in question after this Court had passed an order of restraint and also to submit a reply, if any and the other respondents have been directed to be served with private notice. Further extension was granted for filing the counter affidavit and status quo order was also passed on 28. 2008.
6. Subsequent to the direction, detailed counter affidavits have been filed by the eighth respondent dated nil (August 2008); by the fourth respondent dated 18. 2008; and by the sixth and seventh respondents dated 28. 2008. The sixth and seventh respondents have also filed typed set of papers containing documents in support of their stand. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the fourth and eighth respondents.
7. Earlier one G. Haribabu, claiming to be the General Secretary of Centre for Protection of Civil Liberties filed W. P. No.15156 of 2008, seeking for a direction to the police Authorities to take cognizance of the complaint dated 12. 2008 and to restore the said occupied properties at Angammal Colony, Salem Town. He also sought for a direction to the CBI to hold a fair enquiry. This Court, by an order dated 26. 2008, passed the following order:-
"4. There is a complaint dated 20.1.2008 by one of such persons who is said to have been evicted and it appears from such complaint that possibly the private respondents 6 to 11 acted with the help of some political parties in the State. We are not going into those questions as it is difficult to decide such factual controversy.
5. We merely give liberty to the actual residents of the area to lodge specific complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Salem City. We make it clear that if any such complaint is made with the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Police will hold an immediate inquiry in the matter and will promptly bring the offenders to book. While taking such steps, the Commissioner shall be guided by legal provisions and by obviously ig
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
