S. Manikumar, J.

A retired teacher, claiming himself to be a probono litigant and as party-in-person, has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue a ban order for freebies in election manifesto to the political parties in Tamil Nadu or directing the respondents to frame guidelines that the successful parties should issue freebies from their own fund, as promised in the election manifesto, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 04.08.2015.

2. Mr. R. Perumal, Party-in-person submitted that funds allotted for distribution of freebies is a waste of public money. He also submitted that the freebies distribution are poor in quality and being sold in the neighbouring States. Considering the interest involved in utilizing the Government funds, he sent a representation, dated 04.08.2015, to the Chief Election Commissioner, Tamil Nadu, to issue a ban order against all the political parties not to promise the public that they would give freebies for securing votes. Contending that the said representation was not responded, he has invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, as stated supra.

3. Responding to the same, Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that freebies distributed are welfare measures. He also contended that similar prayer sought for has already been considered in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the same has been rejected. Attention of this Court was also invited to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Subramaniam Balaji Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 2013 (6) MLJ 307 (SC).

4. We have heard Mr. R. Perumal, Party-in-person, and Mr. K. Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and also perused the materials available on record.

5. In S. Subramaniam Balaji Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 2013 (6) MLJ 307(SC) the brief facts, reproduced from the said Judgment are as follows:-

“3 (b) This Scheme was challenged by one S. Subramaniam Balaji-the Appellant herein, by way of filing writ petition before the High Court on the ground that the expenditure to be incurred by the State Government for its implementation out of the State Exchequer is unauthorized, impermissible and ultra vires the Constitutional mandates. The Appellant herein filed a complaint dated 24.04.2006 to the Election Commission of India seeking initiation of action in respect of the said promise under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (in short 'the RP Act'). The Appellant herein also forwarded the complaint to the Chief Election Officer, Tamil Nadu.

(c) The DMK and its political allies emerged victorious in the State Assembly Election held in the month of May, 2006. In pursuit of fulfilling the promise made in the election manifesto, a policy decision was taken by the then government to provide one 14" CTV to all eligible families in the State. It was further decided by the Government to implement the Scheme in a phased manner and a provision of Rs. 750 crores was made in the budget for implementing the same. A Committee was constituted, headed by the then Chief Minister and eight other legislative members of various political parties, in order to ensure transparency in the matter of implementation of the Scheme.

(d) For implementing the first phase of the Scheme, the work of procurement of around 30,000 CTVs was entrusted to Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (ELCOT), a State owned Corporation. The first phase of the Scheme was implemented on 15/17th September, 2006 by distributing around 30,000 CTVs to the identified families in all the districts of the State of Tamil Nadu.

(e) Being aggrieved by