Dismissed

S.Deepashri v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC9 Sept 2019WP/26815/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL, the petitioner sought a writ directing respondent authorities to frame regulations for the safe design of bubble water cans to facilitate handling by women. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling it futile to issue positive directions on design matters as it violates the separation of powers and the Court lacks expertise.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded.

S.Deepashri Vs The Government of Tamil… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 09.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶7

WP.No.26815 of 2019
S.Deepasri .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Government of Tamil nadu,
Secretary to Government
Industrial Department
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.Bureau of Indian Standards,
Ground Floor,
C.I.T Campus,
4 th Cross Road,
Tharamani, Chennai 600 113.
3.Tamil Nadu Packaged Drinking Water
Food Safety Department,
Suryammapet, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. ..Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India prays to issue a Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondents to frame regulation for the safe
design of the water can packing with tap and two handles as
one single unit which is public use by including the
license number, Name of Manufacture, Dealer and
Manufacturing Date Expiry date of the Reverse Osmosis Water
can packing.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Ramamurthy

¶8

For Respondents: Mr.R.Udhayakumar Special Government Pleader

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

ORDER

¶11

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.,]

¶12

The petitioner who claims to be a practising advocate of this Court, came forward to file this writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation seeking for sufficient typed design in respect of Bubble water cans, so as to enable the women folk to handle it without any difficulty or discomfort.

¶13

Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the representation dated 31.07.2018 submitted to the 1^st respondent as well as to the Corporation of Chennai.

¶14

In the considered opinion of this Court, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted for the following reason that the petitioner or other intending consumers are neither under compulsion nor under obligation to purchase the bubble watercans and though the petitioner who claims to be the practising advocate would submit that since normally the bubble water can weighs 15 kg, it is difficult for the women folk to hold it for the purpose of drawing water. In the considered opinion of this court, this Court cannot issue any positive direction in this regard for the reason that there is certain limitation to which the Courts perform its functions and passes orders and it is useful to extract the following paragraphs of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India and others reorted in 2008 (5) SCC 511:

¶15

''39. We would be very happy to issue such directives if they could really be implementable. However, the truth is that they are not implementable (for various reasons, particularly lack of financial and other resources and expertise in the matter). For instance, the directives issued by this Court regarding road safety in M.C. Mehta case [(1997) 8 SCC 770 : AIR 1998 SC 186] hardly seem to have had any effect because everyday we read in the newspapers or see the news on TV about Blueline buses killing or injuring people. In Hawala case (Vineet Narain v. Union of India [(1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 307 : AIR 1998 SC 889] ) a valiant effort was made by this Court to check corruption, but has it made even a dent on the rampant corruption prevailing in the country?

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

It is well settled that futile writs should not be issued by the court.

¶18

In our opinion the court should not assume such awesome responsibility even on a limited scale. The country can ill afford to be governed through court decrees. Any such attempt will not only be grossly undemocratic, it would be most hazardous as the courts do not have the expertise or resources in this connection. The judiciary is not in a position to provide solutions to each and every problem, although human ingenuity would not be lacking to give it some kind of shape or semblance of a legal or constitutional right e.g. by resorting to Article 21.

¶19

The worst result of judicial activism is unpredictability. Unless Judges exercise selfrestraint, each Judge can become a law unto himself and issue directions according to his own personal fancies, which will create chaos.

¶20

The people must know that courts are not the remedy for all ills in society. The problems confronting the nation are so huge that it will be creating an illusion in the minds of the people that the judiciary can solve all the problems. No doubt, the judiciary can make some suggestions/recommendations to the legislature or the executive, but these suggestions/recommendations cannot be binding on the legislature or the executive, otherwise there will be violation of the seven-Judge Bench decision of this Court in P. Ramachandra Rao case [(2002) 4 SCC 578 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 830] and violation of the principle of separation of powers. The judiciary must know its limits and exercise judicial restraint vide Divl. Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass [(2008) 1 SCC 683 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 289 : JT (2008) 3 SC 221] . The people must also realise that the judiciary has its limits and cannot solve all their problems, despite its best intentions.

¶21

The view that the judiciary can run the Government and can solve all the problems of the people is not only unconstitutional, but also it is fallacious and creates a false impression and false illusion that the judiciary is a panacea for all

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

ills in society. Such illusions, in fact, do great harm to the people because it makes the people believe that their problems can be solved by others and not by the people themselves. It debilitates their will and makes them believe that they can solve their problems and improve their conditions not by their own struggles and creativity but by filing a PIL in court. ''

¶24

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to submit a representation to the Tamil Nadu Packaged Drinking Water Association providing the typed design, so as to enable them to take a call with regard to this matter. This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is so advised and if it is available to her under law, she is always at liberty to work out it in accordance with law.

¶25

In the light of the reasons assigned above, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However taking into consideration the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to award costs.

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Cj conf)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sk
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Industrial Department
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.Bureau of Indian Standards,
Ground Floor,
C.I.T Campus,
4 th Cross Road,
Tharamani, Chennai 600 113.
3.Tamil Nadu Packaged Drinking Water
Food Safety Department,
Suryammapet, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
+1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 78109
+1cc to Mr.S.V.Ramamurthy , Advocate SR.No. 78306
WP.No.26815 of 2019
ssd A.SK(14/10/2019)

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Deepashri v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Deepashri v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Nagalakshmi Vs The Managing Director

The Residents Welfare Association Vs The Secretary To Govt

V.Munikrishnan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Biju Kumar, Vs Secretary to Government

Sarojinidevi Vs The Union of India

Union of India Vs D.Raghupathi