This Public Interest Litigation challenging an auction for tree removal was dismissed as the petitioner suppressed material facts regarding their profession as a former contractor and spouse's election candidacy, failing the 'clean hands' doctrine.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.02.2018 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
W.P(MD)No.23087 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.19406 and 19407 of 2017
M.Karunanithi .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Sivagangai, Sivgangai District.
3.The Tahsildar, Manamadurai taluk office, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.
4.Malavarayanenthal Village Panchayath, Represented by the Special Officer cum Block Development Officer, O/o.Block Development Office, Thirupuvanam Union, Sivagangai District.
5.Mr.N.Elangovan .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.A7/3768/2016 dated 24.11.2017 on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to re-conduct the auction for cutting of Seemai Karuvelam / Veli Karuvelam trees in Malavarayanenthal tank situated in Survey Numbers: 96 to a total extent of 25 Acres at Malavarayanenthal, Thriupachetthi Post, Manamadurai Taluk, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sivagangai District, within time frame stipulated by this Court.
2
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.M.Murugan, Government Advocate : No appearance For R-5 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R-4 For R-5
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.]
The present Writ Petition styled as a 'Public Interest Litigation' is filed by Mr.M.Karunanithi, S/o.Muthuraman, who is a resident of Malavarayanenthal Village, Thirupachetthi Post, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District, praying for the quashment of the impugned order dated 24.11.2017, in and by which, the bid was knocked down in favour of the successful bidder, for removal of 'Prosopis Juliflora Trees' (Seemaikaruvelam trees), from the lands/water courses, situated in certain villages of Sivagangai District.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would submit that the petitioner is a former Union Contractor and his wife is also an Ex-Councillor and suppressing the said material fact, he has stated that he is an agriculturist and has also pointed out that though in Malavarayanenthal village, auction has been conducted for removal of 'Prosopis Juliflora Trees' (Seemaikaruvelam trees) in Survey Nos.62/1, 96 and 89/2, the Writ Petitioner has targeted only the the fifth respondent, who was a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ successful bidder in respect of Survey Nos.96 and 89/2 of Malavarayanenthal Village and he has no real public interest and
3
prosecuting this Writ Petition, only with a malafide intention or oblique motive.
5.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that whether the petitioner is a former Contractor and whether his wife is an Ex-Councillor or not, the fact remains that the auction sought to be conducted on 13.02.2017, was postponed to 27.04.2017 and without any proper advertisement or notification, the auction was conducted and on that day, the bid was knocked down in favour of the fifth respondent for extraneous consideration.
6.Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents, would submit that in the light of the pendency of the present writ petition, advice has been given to the concerned official, not to permit the successful bidder to cut the trees.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the auction has not been
4
conducted in a transparent manner, the present writ petition is filed and therefore, costs may not be imposed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)
/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Sivagangai, Sivgangai District.
3.The Tahsildar, Manamadurai taluk office, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.
+One cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, SR.No.48785 +One cc to Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Advocate, SR.No.48780 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.48939 rmi/pm RL/7C/4P/SV/MMS/SAR4/23/2/2018
ORDER MADE IN
W.P(MD)No.23087 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.19406 and 19407 of 2017 14.02.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation deserves indulgence when the petitioner suppresses material facts regarding their occupation and candidacy.
Whether the Court should dismiss the petition on the grounds that the applicant did not approach the Court with clean hands.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Karunanithi
The District Collector
The Revenue Divisional Officer
The Tahsildar, Manamadurai
Malavarayanenthal Village Panchayath/Represented by Special Officer
Mr.N.Elangovan
M.SATHYANARAYANAN
R.HEMALATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
