Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JJ.
Saba. Rajendran & Another – Petitioners
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department & Others – Respondents
WP. Nos. 4077 & 4078 of 2019
Decided On : 13-02-2019
For the Petitioner:R. Neelakandan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:E. Manoharan, Advocate, N. Nithyanandam, Additional Government Pleader.
Headnote:
Mines and Minerals Amendment Act, 2015 - section 15 - clause 4 - Rules, 2017 - tribunal or officer - refusal to consider pertinent evidence – jurisdictions – Bank - Member of Legislative Assembly of Thittakudi Assembly Constituency in Cuddalore District, for a mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to allocate adequate funds to the areas of Thittakudi Assembly Constituency on equal basis on par with other constituencies in Cuddalore District from and out of District Mineral Foundation Trust Fund without any discrimination among the Assembly Constituencies in the District – Held, Mandamus may issue to compel the person or official in whom a discretionary duty is lodged to proceed to exercise such discretion, but unless there is peremptory statutory direction that the duty shall be performed mandamus will not lie to control or review the exercise of the discretion of any board, tribunal or officer, when the act complained of is either judicial or quasi-judicial unless it clearly appears that there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of such Court, board, tribunal or officer, and in accordance with this rule mandamus may not be invoked to compel the matter of discretion to be exercised in any particular way. This principle applies with full force and effect, however, clearly it may be made to appear what the decision ought to be, or even though its conclusion be disputable or, however, erroneous the conclusion reached may be, and although there may be no other method of review or correction provided by law. The discretion must be exercised according to the established rule where the action complained has been arbitrary or capricious, or based on personal, selfish or fraudulent motives, or on false information, or on total lack of authority to act, or where it amounts to an evasion of positive duty, or there has been a refusal to consider pertinent evidence, hear the parties where so required, or to entertain any proper question concerning the exercise of the discretion, or where the exercise of the discretion is in a manner entirely futile and known by the officer to be so and there are other methods which it adopted, would be effective - While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances - Petitions dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S. Manikumar, J.
1. W.P.No.4077 of 2019, is filed by Mr.Saba.Rajendran, Member of Legislative Assembly of Neyveli Assembly Constituency in Cuddalore District, for a mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to allocate adequate funds to the areas of Neyveli Assembly Constituency on equal basis on par with other constituencies in Cuddalore District from and out of District Mineral Foundation Trust Fund without any discrimination among the Assembly Constituencies in the District.
2. W.P.No.4078 of 2018, is filed by Mr.V.Ganesan, a Member of Legislative Assembly of Thittakudi Assembly Constituency in Cuddalore District, for a mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to allocate adequate funds to the areas of Thittakudi Assembly Constituency on equal basis on par with other constituencies in Cuddalore District from and out of District Mineral Foundation Trust Fund without any discrimination among the Assembly Constituencies in the District.
3. As both the writ petitions are for a similar prayer, with averments to the effect that both Neyveli and Thittakudi constituencies fall within Cuddalore District, and having regard to the contention that the petitioners represent opposition parties, there is a total discrimination in allocation of the District Mineral Foundation Trust Fund to the constituencies, though many people in the said constituencies have been affected by mining related operations, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
4. Petitioners have contended that a sum of Rs. 89 Crores have been contributed by Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) India Limited, represented by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Chennai, the 4th respondent herein to the Cuddalore District Mineral Foundation, represented by the Chairperson/District Collector, Cuddalore, the 2nd respondent herein.
5. It is the further case of Mr.Saba.Rajendran, petitioner in WP.No.4077 of 2019, Member of the Legislative Assembly, Neyveli, that he made a representations dated 18.08.2018, 03.10.2018 and 22.10.2018 to the Government of Tamil Nadu and the District Collector, Cuddalore District, requesting them to allocate funds proportionately and equally to his Assembly Constituency viz. Neyveli, from the District Mineral Foundation Trust Fund, enabling implementation of the welfare and infrastructural development projects in the mining area. Similar representation has been sent to the District Collector, by Mr.V.Ganesan, petitioner in W.P.No.4078 of 2019, Member of Legislative Assembly of Thittakudi Constituency on 10.09.2018.
6. It is the further case of the petitioners that allocation of District Mineral Foundation Trust Fund should be equal to all the constituencies in the entire District of Cuddalore and it cannot be on the whims and fancies of the Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Industries Department, Chennai, Cuddalore District Mineral Foundation, represented by the Chairperson/District Collector, Cuddalore and Managing Committee, Cuddalore District Mineral Foundation, represented by the Chairperson, Cuddalore, respondents 1 to 3 respectively. Contending inter alia that they are elected representatives of the Assembly Constituencies, petitioners have sought for mandamus, stated supra.
7. On the above averments, Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions. Yet another contention made by the petitioners is that there is no transparency in allocation of funds. Attention of this Court was also invited to Rules 3, 13, 14 and 21 of the Tamil Nadu District Mineral Foundation Rules, 2017.
8. Heard Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.
9. Before adverting to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we deem it fit to have a cursory look on the statutory provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (10 of 2015).
10. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub clause 4 to section 15 of th
