The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking an inquiry into alleged corruption in the Erode Municipal Corporation's sewerage project. The Court held that public interest litigation based merely on newspaper reports is not maintainable.
Writ of Mandamus praying for an enquiry into alleged corrupt activities 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 : 01.08.2016
CORAM :
The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
18.Natesan, Assistant Engineer, C/o.Erode Municipal Corporation, Erode.
19.Rajendran, Assistant Engineer, C/o.Erode Municipal Corporation, Erode. ... Respondents
(Respondent Nos.8 to 19 impleaded as
per the order in M.P.No.2/2014, dt. 01.8.2016)
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to conduct enquiry about the contract works relating to Under Ground Sewerage System (UGSS) of Erode Municipal Corporation, the alleged corrupt activities of The Commissioner and the Superintending Engineer of the Erode Municipal Corporation and their subordinate Engineers and officials; to revamp or create a new set-up of honest officials and engineers enabling the effective completion of the UGSS in Erode Municipal Corporation with minimum project cost and within the plan period of the end of 2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadam
For Respondents : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R8
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petitioner seeks an enquiry into the contract works relating to the Under Ground Sewerage System of Erode Municipal Corporation. The petitioner does not claim any personal knowledge nor has he made any investigation, but the petition is entirely based on a newspaper report.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
bbr
To 1. The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Principal Secretary, The Department of Finance, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3. The Vigilance Commissioner, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 4. The Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 5. The Commissioner Municipal Administration, Elizhagam, Chepuak, Chennai-600 005. 6. The Director, The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, No.28, Greenways Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, No.1/2, Kamatchi Amman Koil Street, Karungal Palayam, Erode-3.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.43791
W.P.No.3017 of 2014
UG(CO) CA(02/09/2016)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition based solely on a newspaper report without personal knowledge or independent investigation is maintainable under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
generic opinion on PILs based on newspaper reportsReferred¶2
not specified
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Muruganandham
The State, rep. by The Chief Secretary
The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance
The Vigilance Commissioner
The Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration
Commissioner Municipal Administration
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
R. Mahadevan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Mahadevan
Parties & counsel
