High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by elected councillors as a public interest litigation challenging municipal appointments. The Court held that PILs are not maintainable in service matters, relying on Supreme Court precedents, and found no merit after perusing affidavits.
Writ petition for certiorari and quashing of appointment records was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 13.03.2014
Coram
The Honourable Mr.SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
Writ Petition No.25704 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
1.Tmt.P.Lakshmi
2.I.Sumathi
3.V.Vijayakumari
4.P.Ilanthendral
5.T.Pazahatamilmaran .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.State rep.by The Chief Secretary to the
Government of Tamilnadu,
Chennai – 600 009
2.The Secretary to the Government of
Tamil Nadu, Ministry of Local Administration
Government of Tamilnadu,
Chennai – 600 009
3.The District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
4.The Commissioner/Secretary of Appointment
Committee, Nellikuppam Municipaltiy,
Nellikuppam, Cuddalore District,
5.The Chairman/Chairman of Appointment
of Committee, Nellikuppam Municipality
Nellikuppam, Cuddalore District,
6.The District Employment Officer,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore,
7.The Zonal Municipality Executive
Committee, Chengalpet,
Kancheepuram District,
9.Shri.Selvi 10.Shri.Arul 11.Shri.A.Shanmugam 12.Selvi R.Pavithra 13.A.Babu, 14.M.Karunakaran 15.Sudhakar 16.Surendar Sha .. Respondents RR.15 and 16 are impleaded as per order dt.31.10.2013 in M.P.No.3 of 2013
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records in Form X 58 dated 12.4.2013 on the file of 4th respondent and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Dr.G.Krishnamurthy
For respondents: Mr.M.S.Ramesh, AGP for RR.1 to 3 and 6 Mr.N.Subramani for RR4 and 5 Mr.S.Arivazhagam
for RR.9 and 11 to 14
ORDER
The petitioners herein are elected Councillors of the 3rd respondent Municipality. This writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation challenging the proceedings of respondent No.4 dated 12.4.2013 by which the appointments have been made in favour of the private respondents herein.
"6. About maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation in service matters except for a writ of quo warranto, there are series of decisions of this Court laying down the principles to be followed. It is not seriously contended that the matter in issue is not a service matter. In fact, such objection was not raised and agitated before the High Court. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the appellant herein was initially appointed and served in the State Electricity Board as a Member in terms of Section 5(4) and from among the Members of the Board, considering the qualifications specified in Subsection (4), the State Government, after getting a report from the vigilance department, appointed him as Chairman of the Board, it is impermissible to claim that the issue cannot be agitated under service jurisprudence. We have already pointed out that the person who approached the High Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation is not a competitor or eligible to be considered as a Member or Chairman of the Board but according to him, he is a Vidyut Shramik Leader. Either before the High Court or in this Court, he has not placed any material or highlighted on what way he is suitable and eligible for that post.
"21. In the result, we answer the first question in the negative and hold that the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act cannot entertain a public interest litigation at the instance of a total stranger."
"16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though inDuryodhan Sahu (Dr)v.Jitendra Kumar Mishra this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the courts should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.
The above principles make it clear that except for a writ of quo warranto, Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in service matters."
by respondent No.6 that the private respondents have been appointed in pursuant to their candidature being sponsored through Employment Exchange. They have also joined their duty and working as of now. Therefore, even on merits we do not find any material in support of the petitioner.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS V )
Dated:19.3.2014
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
usk
To
1. The Chief Secretary to the
Government of Tamilnadu,
Chennai – 600 009
2.The Secretary to the
Government of
Tamil Nadu, Ministry of Local
Administration
Government of Tamilnadu,
Chennai – 600 009
Chennai – 600 005,
W.P. No.25704 of 2013
KKI (CO)
kk 20/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a public interest litigation filed by elected councillors challenging municipal appointments is maintainable in service matters.
Whether the High Court can accept a PIL in lieu of a quo warranto writ regarding service appointments.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and othersApplied¶20
Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others, (2010) 8 MLJ 405
Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and Ors.v.Jitendra Kumar Mishra and OrsRelied on¶22
Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and Ors.v.Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors, (1998) 7 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Ashok Kumar Pandey v.State of W.B.Referred¶24
Ashok Kumar Pandey v.State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349 · Who else cites this
Dr. B. Singhv.Union of India and Ors.Referred¶27
Dr. B. Singhv.Union of India and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 363 · Who else cites this
Dattaraj Nathuji Thawarev.State of Maharashtra and Ors.Referred¶27
Dattaraj Nathuji Thawarev.State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 590 · Who else cites this
Gurpal Singh v.State of Punjab and Ors.Referred¶27
Gurpal Singh v.State of Punjab and Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 136 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tmt.P.Lakshmi
I.Sumathi
State
The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Ministry of Local Administration
The District Collector, Cuddalore District
The Commissioner/Secretary of Appointment Committee, Nellikuppam Municipality
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI
M.M.SUNDRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
