Dismissed

L.Jayanthi v. The Secretary toGovernment

Madras HC11 Mar 2019WP/6775/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A public interest writ petition sought a mandamus to restrain the State from spending on government advertisements in evening newspapers, alleging waste of public money and arbitrary rates. The court held that a mandamus requires a subsisting legal right and a corresponding legal duty, found the earlier petition on the same cause of action suppressed, and dismissed the writ petition as an abuse of

What the court decided

AI extract

L.Jayanthi Vs The Secretary toGovernment — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11/3/2019

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶4

W.P.No.6775 of 2019

¶5

L. Jayanthi ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Secretary to Government Tamil Development and Information (Advertisement) Department Secretariat Chennai 600009. 2. The Principal Secretary to Government Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009. 3. The Editor “Makkal Kural” (Tamil Evening) No.1 First Main Road United India Colony Kodambakkam Chennai 600 024. 4. The Editor “Trinity Mirror” (English Evening) No.1 First Main Road United India Colony Kodambakkam Chennai 600 024. 5. The Editor “Malai Murasu” M/s. Chennai Murasu Private Ltd from Sun 246 Anna Salai Thousand Lights Chennai 600 006.

¶6

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

¶7

The Editor “Malai Malar” Rani Building, No.86 EVR Hig Road Vepery Chennai 600 007. ... Respondents

¶8

WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18/1/2019, to forbear or forbid the first and second respondents from effecting unnecessary advertisements which have no bearing or connections to the public events, functions, meetings, conference etc., by causing loss to State Exchequer by misusing the public money and in violation of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgment with regard to publication of Government advertisements.

¶9

Ms.L.Jayanthi, claiming herself to be a public interest litigant, has filed the instant writ petition, for a mandamus, to consider her representation, dated 18/1/2019, said to have been submitted to the Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu Development and Information (Advertisement) Department and the Principal Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai, first and second respondents, respectively, to forbid from effecting unnecessary advertisements, which have no bearing or connections to public events, functions, meetings, conference etc., by causing loss to the State Exchequer by misusing the public money and in violation of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in various judgments, with regard to publication of Government advertisements.

¶10

2. Averments made by the writ petitioner, in paragraph Nos.3 to 10, for the prayer sought for, are reproduced:-

¶11

“3. I submit that while the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of Government of India

¶12

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

¶13

has fixed the rate of Rs.13.49 per sq.c.m., the first respondent, vide their G.O.(Misc) No.116, Tamil Development and Information (Advt.) Department, dated 18/11/2015 has fixed the rate of Rs.6.75/- per sq.cm., for publication of their advertisements in the dailies of third and fourth respondents is arbitrary, unjust and mala fide.

¶14

4. I submit that the Government has given different advertisements to several dailies then and there. Advertisement is one of the source to make the public to know the implementation of new schemes, plans and developments of the Government. If the said advertisements are published within the reasonable time well in advance of announcement/inauguration/implementation of the schemes and plans, the public could have aware the contents of the advertisement and enjoy the fruits of the schemes so advertised. In contra, if the message through the advertisement is reached to the wide public later, it will not be give more effective and the purpose of advertisement would be frustrated and futile.

¶15

5. I submit that the second respondent has given advertisement of “Pongal Gift by Tami Nadu C.M” to the evening dailies with following expenditure in 33 width x 45 height centimetre.

¶16

S.No. Name of Circulation Date of Rate per Expenditur
Newspaper Publicati sq.c.m e
on Rs. (Rs.).
1 Makkalkural 16860 5/1/2019 1350 20,04,750
(Tamil) (Certified
by C.A)
2 Trinity 15766 5/1/2019 1350 20,04,750
Mirror (Certified
(English) by CA)
---
3 Malai 5/1/2019 800 13,20,000
Murasu
(Tamil)
4 Malai Malar 16827 5/1/2019 646 10,65,000
(Tamil) (Certified
by CA)

¶17

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

¶18

6. I submit that while the time fixed for inauguration of the function of “Pongal Gift by Tamil Nadu CM” was on 5/1/2019 at 4.00 p.m., the advertisements given in the above said dailies could not be reached the wide public well in advance of the said date and time of the inauguration of the function through which the Government failed to disseminate any information to the public of their rights and entitlements in the Government policies.

¶19

7. I submit that the third and fourth respondents themselves have stated that while their dailies would be available to the out station subscribers only on the next day of publication the purpose of giving advertisements to the said dailies with alarming expenditure is highly impropriatory, futile and public money of State exchequer was utilised in extravagance and wasteful.

¶20

8. I submit that while the third and fourth respondents have fixed the flat rate of Rs.95,000/and Rs.50,000/- respectively with less 15% agency commission for publication of advertisements of inauguration of “News J” TV channel on 14/11/2018 the rate adopted for advertisement for the same space i.e., 33 width x 45 height as mentioned in S.No.1 and 2 of para 5 is against public interest which would clearly show that the Government acts in a manner which would benefit private party at cost of state.

¶21

9. I submit that if the second respondent has given advertisement by adopting the rate of Rs.13.40 sq.cm to the dailies of third, fourth and sixth respondents as their agreed rate approved by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India the expenditure of the above advertisement would be @ Rs.20,032/- per daily (Rs.13.49 x 1 x 33 x 45) result of which Rs.50,14,404/- (Rs.19,84,718 + 19,84,718 + 10,44,404) could be saved and used for public welfare schemes.

¶22

10. I submit that while the first respondent has fixed the maximum rate of Rs.675/- per sq.cm., to the dailies of third and second respondent, the adopted rate of Rs.1350/- per sq.cm., by third and fourth respondents for the above advertisement paved the way of siphoning the public money in extravagantly and thus public money is being looted legally from the State exchequer while the fund is

¶23

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

¶24

scarce for welfare schemes. Though I made representation on 8/1/2019, in this regard to the first and second respondents, no order was passed.”

¶25

3. At paragraph No.12 of the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has contended that to her knowledge, no other person has filed any public interest litigation with respect to the subject matter.

¶26

4. High Court, Madras, has framed Rules to regulate Proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule 7 of the said Rules, is reproduced hereunder:“Every affidavit in support of a writ petition, shall affirm that the petitioner has not filed any similar writ petition suit or any other proceeding on the same subject matter. If the petitioner has filed any such writ petition, suit or proceeding then he shall furnish the particulars of such application, suit or proceeding in respect of the same subject matter and the stage of the manner of disposal of such proceedings. It should also contain the fact whether the petitioner has received notice of caveat or not.

¶27

5. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not affirmed that she has not filed any similar writ petition, on the same subject matter. During the course of this proceedings, Mr.Ashwin, learned counsel who represented Mr.Stalin Muthu, learned counsel on record was posed with a question, as to whether the petitioner had filed a similar writ petition, to adhere to the rate of Rs.13.49 sq.cm, in the dailies “Makkal Kural” and “Trinity Mirror”, the orders passed thereon, Mr.Stalin Muthu, learned counsel on record, present in Court, instructed the former that W.P.No.23231 of 2018 was filed by her and that the same was disposed of, vide, order, dated 24/9/2018. However, Mr.Ashwin, learned counsel submitted that the prayer made in W.P.No.23231 of 2018 and the prayer made in the instant writ petition No.6775 of 2019 are different.

¶28

6. Prayers made in both the writ petitions are extracted hereunder:-

¶29

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

¶30

Prayer made in W.P.No.23231 of Prayer made in W.P.No.6775 of 2018 2019 directing the respondent writ of mandamus, to consider therein, to reduce the rate, the petitioner's representation ie., Rs.13.49 per Sq.cm., of dated 18/1/2019, to forbear or the above two dailies, ie., forbid the first and second Makkal Kural (Tamil) and respondents from effecting Trinity Mirror (English), as unnecessary advertisements adopted by the Directorate of which have no bearing or Advertising and Visual connections to the public Publicity, Ministry of events, functions, meetings, Information and Broad Casting, conference etc., by causing Government of India, loss to State Exchequer by misusing the public money and in violation of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments with regard to publication of Government advertisements.

¶31

7. First of all, there is a suppression of fact of filing W.P.No.23231 of 2018 and the orders passed thereon, in this writ petition. Merely because the prayers in both the writ petition are different with a cosmetic variance, camouflage in filing the instant writ petition is per se apparent on the face of it, when facts in both the cases are considered. There is abuse of process of law.

¶32

8. In W.P.No.23231 of 2018, dated 24/9/2018, we have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein, Mr.Stalin Muthu, and the learned Advocate General for the State, with reference to Government Orders periodically issued, as regards the rate of advertisement and as to how the Government have fixed the rates for advertisement. Contention of arbitrariness, mala fides, waste of public money, have been considered extenso. Relevant paragraphs of the order made in W.P.No.23231 of 2018 are extracted hereunder:-

¶33

“Public Interest Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus, directing the respondent to reduce the rate of advertisement in Tamil Nadu at Rs.13.49 per Sq.Cm., for two dailies, ie., Makkal Kural (Tamil) and Trinity Mirror (English), as adopted by the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broad Casting, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶34

2. Case of the petitioner is that the Directorate of Advertising the Visual Publicity,

¶35

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

¶36

Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi 110 003, has entered into an Advertising Rate Contract Agreement, at Rs.13.49 per Sq.Cm., with "Makkal Kural (Tamil Daily) and Trinity Mirror (English Daily)", bearing Door No.1, First Main Road, United India Colony, Chennai-24, for a period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2018. But, the Secretary to the Government, Tamil Nadu Development and Information (Advertisement) Department, Chennai, respondent herein, vide G.O.Ms.No.116, Tamil Development and Information (Advt.) Department, dated 18.11.2015, has fixed the rate at Rs.675/- per Sq.Cm., for the publication of advertisement in the abovesaid papers, which is exorbitant and unreasonable.

¶37

3. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a petition, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, requesting the Public Information Officer, Tamil Development and Information (Advertisement) Department, Chennai, to furnish the details, relating to the publication of advertisement in dailies, rate adopted per sq.cm., cost of publication paid to the dailies, etc., for the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2017. In response to the same, the Joint Director (Public Relation), has simply informed that the required information cannot be furnished, as per Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, against which, an appeal has been filed before the State Information Commissioner, Chennai 600 018 and the same is pending.

¶38

4. While the matter stood thus, the respondent has given power jacket two pages, colour advertisements on 21.03.2018, under the caption of "One year achievements of Government of Tamil Nadu" and a power jacket one page colour advertisements on 24.02.2018, under the caption of "Inauguration of "AMMA Two Wheeler Scheme" at subsidized rate to working women", to the above two dailies, at the rate of Rs.1,350/- per Sq.Cm., by which, the Advertisement Charges work out to Rs.1,20,28,500/-, as below:

¶39

(Rs.1350 x 2 x 2 x 33 width 45 height) Rs. 80,19,000/(Rs.1350 x 2 x 1 x 33 x width 45 heights) Rs. 40,09,500/Total Rs.1,20,28,500/

¶40

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

¶41

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the abovesaid two dailies have no wide circulation and therefore, the purpose of giving advertisement, would become futile and funds from the State Exchequer is high. According to the petitioner, even the above two dailies are also not in the list of "Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC)". According to her, both the dailies are only evening issues and the purpose of giving advertisement, is meaningless and futile, as the message would not reach the public, widely.

¶42

6. According to the petitioner, if the respondent gives advertisement, by adopting the rate of Rs.13.49 per Sq.Cm., to the above two dailies, as approved by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, the expenditure for the two advertisements will be Rs.1,20,285/(Rs.80,190/- + Rs.40,095/-), by which, a sum of Rs.1,19,08,215/- could be saved and used for any other public welfare schemes.

¶43

7. It is also the further case of the petitioner that the Government have given several advertisements, such as, Government tenders of all departments; advertisements of the Boards, such as, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, etc., to several dailies, including the above two dailies, both in English and Tamil, and if the Government adopts the rates, as approved in the Central Government Order, dated 18.11.2015, heavy funds from the State Exchequer, ie., public money, would not be siphoned. In this regard, the petitioner has sent a representation, dated 01.06.2018, to the respondent. Since there is no response, she has filed the present Public Interest Litigation, for the reliefs, as stated supra.

¶44

8. Supporting the prayer, on the basis of averments made in the writ petition, Mr.S.Stalin Muthu, learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions.

¶45

Placing reliance on Commercial Rate Card, in respect of a newspaper, "Dinakaran", Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent submitted that rates of advertisement are fixed on basis of market, for the newspaper, as per the Audit Bureau of Circulation. He submitted that in case, the advertisement is in colour, the rate is double.

¶46

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

¶47

Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Kal Publications Private Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu [W.P.No.6374 of 2017, etc. batch, dated 01.06.2017], learned Advocate General submitted that advertisements are given to all the newspapers, without discrimination.

¶48

Learned Advocate General further drew the attention of this Court to the various Government Orders, issued in the matter of advertisement. He also submitted that Makkal Kural (Tamil) and Trinity Mirror (English) newspapers, against whom, relief is sought for, are necessary and proper parties, but not added as parties to this writ petition.

¶49

Learned Advocate General further submitted that the Central Government advertisements are not normally published in the regional newspapers with lesser circulation but only in national newspapers, which have wide circulation and therefore, what is fixed by the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broad Casting, Government of India, New Delhi, cannot be made applicable to the rates of advertisement in Tamil Nadu. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶50

By way of reply, Mr.S.Stalin Muthu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Government Orders issued, do not specify that for colour advertisement, the rate would be double.

¶51

Heard learned Mr.S.Stalin Muthu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vijay Narayan learned Advocate General for the respondent.

¶52

Prayer made in the writ petition, is as follows:

¶53

“Writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to reduce the rate, ie., Rs.13.49 per Sq.Cm., of the above two dailies, ie., Makkal Kural (Tamil) and Trinity Mirror (English), as adopted by the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broad Casting, Government of India.”

¶54

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

¶55

Let us consider, how a rate card is quoted by a newspaper for the purpose of advertisement, for instance, "Dinakaran", which is as follows:

¶56

DINAKARAN ADVERTISEMENT RATES EFFECTIVE 01.04.2018

¶57

EDITION DISPLAY RATE FOR B&W ADVERTISEMENTS PER SQUARE CENTIMETRE (IN RUPEES)
WEEK DAYS SUNDAYS
CHENNAI 842 853
COIMBATORE 226 228
MADURAI 228 230
TRICHY 226 228 SALEM 161 163
VELLORE 113 116
TIRUNELVELI 109 111
NAGERCOIL 88 90
PONDICHERRY 148 151
BANGALORE 94 96
MUMBAI 153 155
DELHI 108 110
TAMILNADU & PONDY 2100 2105
ALL EDITIONS 2286 2291
COLOUR : 100% EXTRA
FRONT PAGE : 100% EXTRA THIRD PAGE : 25% EXTRA
BACK PAGE : 50% EXTRA Height of column : 51 cms Minimum Size acceptable 4 cms(width) x 3 cms(height) Minimum width : 4 cms. Minimum height : 3 cms
Maximum width : 33 cms. Maximum height : 51 cms. Full page advertisement 33 cms(width) x 51 cms (height)
(If ad height is more than 46 cms. the ad will be billed for the page height)
(If ad width is greater than 29 cms. the ad will be billed at the page width)."

¶58

Reading of the above shows that the rate for advertisement of the material (Black and White per Sq.Cm.) is given. For colour advertisement, it is double. Rate card depicts the details of circulation of the newspaper, within and outside State of Tamilnadu. Rate of advertisement is quoted by various newspapers and Government have issued periodical orders. Orders issued by the Government, from time to time, are extracted hereunder:

¶59

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

¶60

tpsk;guk; ? muR tpsk;gu';fs; btspapLtjw;F m';fPfhpf;fg;gl; ;l ehspjH;fSf;F tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; cah;j;jp eph;zak; bra;jy; ? Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/

¶61

bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyh (tpsk;guk;)j;Jiw murhiz (o) vz;/108 ehs;/02/06/2006

¶62

1/ murhiz(o)vz;/92. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/1?8?1996/

¶63

2/ murhiz(o)vz;/107. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/10?9?1996/ 3/ murhiz(o)vz;/98. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/26?8?1996/ 4/ murhiz(o)vz;/109. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/11?9?1996/ 5/ murhiz(o)vz;/117. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/22?10?1996/ 6/ murhiz(o)vz;/121. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/5?11?1996/ 7/ murhiz(o)vz;/124. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/6?11?1996/ 8/ murhiz(o)vz;/132. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/22?11?1996/ 9/ murhiz(o)vz;/134. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/27?11?1996/ 10/ murhiz(o)vz;/28. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/19?3?1997/ 11/ murhiz(o)vz;/34. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/4?4?1997/ 12/ murhiz(o)vz;/47. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/7?5?1997/ 13/ murhiz(o)vz;/83. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/11?7?1997/ 14/ murhiz(o)vz;/84. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/11?7?1997/ 15/ murhiz(o)vz;/90. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/23?7?1997/ 16/ murhiz(o)vz;/103. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/8?8?1997/ 17/ murhiz(o)vz;/106. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/26?8?1997/ 18/ murhiz(o)vz;/107. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/1?9?1997/ 19/ murhiz(o)vz;/108. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/1?9?1997/ 20/ murhiz(o)vz;/119. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/19?9?1997/ 21/ murhiz(o)vz;/122. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/24?9?1997/ 22/ murhiz(o)vz;/129. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/16?10?1997/ 23/ murhiz(o)vz;/131. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/20?10?1997/ 24/ murhiz(o)vz;/139. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/14?11?1997/ 25/ murhiz(o)vz;/27. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/10?03?1998/ 26/ murhiz(epiy)vz;/48. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/20?3?1998/ 27/ murhiz(epiy)vz;/45. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/26?3?1998/ 28/ murhiz(o)vz;/51. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/23?4?1998/ 29/ murhiz(o)vz;/72. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/2?6?1998/ 30/ murhiz(epiy)vz;/98. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/2?6?1998/ 31/ murhiz(o)vz;/87. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/13?7?1998/ 32/ murhiz(o)vz;/112. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/27?8?1998/ 33/ murhiz(o)vz;/155. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/4?11?1998/ 34/ murhiz(o)vz;/53. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/12?4?1999/ 35/ murhiz(o)vz;/54. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/12?4?1999/ 36/ murhiz(o)vz;/90. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/25?6?1999/ 37/ murhiz(o)vz;/19. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/15?2?2000/ 38/ murhiz(o)vz;/29. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/6?3?2000/

¶64

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

¶65

39/ murhiz(o)vz;/45. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/23?3?2000/

¶66

40/ murhiz(o)vz;/72. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/28?4?2000/ 41/ murhiz(o)vz;/75. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/2?5?2000/ 42/ murhiz(o)vz;/90. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/24?5?2000/ 43/ murhiz(o)vz;/91. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/24?5?2000/ 44/ murhiz(o)vz;/125. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/6?7?2000/ 45/ murhiz(o)vz;/126. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/6?7?2000/ 46/ murhiz(o)vz;/142. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/20?7?2000/ 47/ murhiz(o)vz;/160. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/3?8?2000/ 48/ murhiz(o)vz;/162. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/4?8?2000/ 49/ murhiz(o)vz;/163. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/8?8?2000/ 50/ murhiz(o)vz;/201. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/9?10?2000/ 51/ murhiz(o)vz;/205. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/18?10?2000/ 52/ murhiz(o)vz;/221. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/9?11?2000/ 53/ murhiz(o)vz;/247.248.249. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw.

¶67

ehs;/14?12?2000/

¶68

54/ murhiz(o)vz;/03.04. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/18?1?2001/ 55/ muR Miz (o)vz;/33. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/14/3/2001/

¶69

56/ muR Miz (o)vz;/109. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/22/6/2001/ 57/ muR Miz (o)vz;/139. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/30/7/2001/ 58/ muR Miz (o)vz;/170. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/3/10/2001/ 59/ muR Miz (o)vz;/171. 172. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/3/10/2001/

¶70

60/ muR Miz (o)vz;/177.178 bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/17/10/2002/

¶71

61/ muR Miz (o)vz;/2. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/3/1/2003/ 62/ muR Miz (o)vz;/14. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/27/1/2003/ 63/ muR Miz (o)vz;/38. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/24/2/2003/ 64/ muR Miz (o)vz;/44. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/10/3/2003/ 65/ muR Miz (o)vz;/62. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/27/3/2003/ 66/ muR Miz (o)vz;/120. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw.

¶72

ehs;/29/5/2003/

¶73

67/ muR Miz (o)vz;/202. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/14/10/2003/

¶74

68/ muR Miz (o)vz;/62. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/27/1/2003/ 69/ muR Miz (o)vz;/100. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/14/6/2005/ 70/ muR Miz (epiy)vz;/132. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/1/7/2005/

¶75

71/ muR Miz (epiy)vz;/12. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/9/1/2006/

¶76

Miz:

¶77

muR m';fPfhug; gl;oaypy; cs;s bgUk;ghd;ikahd ehspjH;fSf;F Rkhh; 5 Mz;LfSf;F Kd;g[ ghh;it 55?y; gof;fg;gl;l murhizapd;go. muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; eph;zak; bra;J Mizaplg;gl;lJ/ gj;jphpf;iffs; jahhpg;g[

¶78

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

¶79

bryt[ mjpfhpg;g[. fhfpjk;. gj;jphpf;if btspapLtjw;fhd K:yg; bghUl;fspd; tpiynaw;wk;. gj;jphpf;ifahsh; kw;Wk; gzpahsh;fspd; Cjpa cah;t[ cs;spl;l fhuz';fspd; mog;gilapy; muR tpsk;guf; fl;lz tpfpj';fis cah;j;jp eph;zak; bra;a ntz;o. gy;ntW ehspjH;fspd; eph;thfpfs; mt;tg;nghJ muRf;F ntz;Lnfhs; tpLj;Js;sdh;/

¶80

1996?Mk; Mz;L. ehspjH;fSf;F tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; cah;j;jp tH';f Kot[ vLj;j bghGJ. 21/6/1996 md;W gjpg;gfj;jhh; kw;Wk; ehspjH;fspd; gpujpepjpfSld; khz;g[kpF. bra;jp tpsk;guj; Jiw mikr;rh; mth;fs; tpthjpj;J. m';fPfhpf;fg;gl;l gl;oaypy; ,lk; bgw;Ws;s midj;J ehspjH;fSf;Fk; xnu rPuhf mitfspd; th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 75% muR tpsk;gu';fSf;fhd tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf muR Miz (o) vz;/92. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyh (tpsk;guk;)j;Jiw. ehs;/1/8/1996?y; eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;lJ/

¶81

2/8/1996 Kjy; 14/3/2001 tiu 54 muR Mizfspy;. rpy ehspjH;fs; kw;Wk; gUt ,jH;fSf;F mtw;wpd; th;j;jf tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;jpy; 75% muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf eph;zak; bra;J Mizfs; brspaplg;gl;ld/ rpy epfH;g[fspy;. rpy gjpg;gfj;jhhpd; tpUg;gj;jpw;fpz';f. 70% tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; cah;j;jp tH';fg;gl;lJ/

¶82

14/3/2001 ehspl;l bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj; Jiwapd; muR Miz vz;/33?y; m';fPfhpf;fg;gl;l gl;oaypy; mg;bghGJ ,lk; bgw;wpUe;j midj;J ehspjH;fSf;Fk;. muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;jpy; rPuhf 20% (Irrespective of their commercial rate, a Uniform increase of 20% of the existing Government rate prevailing at that time) cah;j;jp muR fl;lzkhf eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;lJ/

¶83

13/5/2001?ypUe;J 2006 nk khjk; tiu ehspjH;fspd; tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;ij jpUj;jp mikj;j tpguk; gpd;tUkhW:-

¶84

(i) vk;g;sha;bkd;l;l; rh;tP!; vd;Dk; thu ,jHpid muR m';fPfhpf;fg;gl;l gl;oaypy; 22/6/2001 Kjy; mjd; th;j;jf tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;jpy; 75% Md U:/18.750-?(cs;gf;fk;) U:/26.250-?(btspgf;fk;) vd muR tpsk;gu';fSf;fhd fl;lzkhf eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;lJ/

¶85

(muR Miz vz;/109. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/22/6/2001)

¶86

(ii) midj;J ehspjH;fSf;Fk;. tpsk;guf; fl;lz';fs; cah;j;jp tH';fg;gl;l nghJ 'lhf;lh; ekJ vk;/$p/Mh; ' ehspjHpd; tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; 1996 kw;Wk; 2001?y; jpUj;jp mikf;fg;glhjjhy;. 7/3/92?y; mjd; muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; U:35-? Mf ,Ue;jij mt;ehspjHpd; th;j;jf tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;jpy; 75% Md U:/90-?I 30/7/2001?y; muR tpsk;gu';fSf;fhd fl;lzkhf eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;lJ/

¶87

(muR Miz vz;/139. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/30/7/2001)

¶88

(iii) 1996?k; Mz;L midj;J ehspjH;fSf;Fk; tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; cah;j;jp tH';fg;gl;lnghJ. 'kf;fs; Fuy;' ehspjGf;F tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; cah;j;jp tH';fhjjhy;. mjd; tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; 3/10/2001 md;W g[jpa gjpg;g [fSf;F fl;lzk; eph;zak; bra;J jpUj;jp mikf;fg;gl;lJ/

¶89

(muR Miz vz;/170. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/3/10/2001)

¶90

(iv) 'jpdg{kp' kw;Wk; 'mjph;c&;lk; 'Mfpa ehspjH;fs; Kiwna ghz;or;nrhp. nryk;. jpUbey;ntyp kw;Wk; nfhit gjpg;g[fs; g[jpajhf bjhl';fg;gl;ljhy;. mjd; th;j;jff;; fl;lzj;jpy; 40% ?I muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf 3/10/2001 kw;Wk; 17/10/2002

¶91

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

¶92

Mfpa jpd';fspy; jpUj;jp mikf;fg;gl;ld/

¶93

(muR Miz vz;/171. 172. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/3/10/2001) (muR Miz vz;/177. 178 bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/17/10/2002) (v) 'jpdj;je;jp ' ehspjHpd; midj;J gpujpfspd; vz;zpf;ifpaid fUj;jpw; bfhz;Lk;. me;ehspjHpd; nfhhpf;ifapd; mog;gilapy; 14/3/2001?y; muR eph;zapj;j tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;jpypUe;J 60% cah;j;jp 3/1/2003 Kjy; eph;zapf;fg;gl;lJ/

¶94

(muR Miz vz;/2. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/3/1/2003) (vi) khj;Ug{kp kiyahs ehspjHpd; brd;id gjpg;gpw;F. me;ehspjH; nfl;Lf; bfhz;lgo. mjd; th;j;jf tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;jpy; 70% muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf eph;zapf;fg;gl;lJ/

¶95

(muR Miz vz;/38. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/24/2/2003)

¶96

(vii) ildpf; $hf;ud; kw;Wk; ildpf; gh!;fh; vd;Dk; ,e;jp ehspjH;fSf;F mjd; th;j;jf tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;jpy; Kiwna 75% kwWk; 70% vd muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf eph;zapf;fg;gl;lJ/

¶97

(muR Miz vz;/44. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/10/3/2003) (muR Miz vz;/62. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/27/3/2003)

¶98

(viii) ilk;!; Mg; ,e;jpah. vf;fdhkpf; ilk;!; kw;Wk; etghuj; ilk;!; Mfpa M';fpy ehspjH;fSf;F eilKiwapy; gpd;gw;wp te;j gj;jp brd;o kPl;lh; vd;w myfpid rJu brd;o kPl;lh; vd khw;wpa[k; 29/5/2003 kw;Wk; 14/10/2003 Kjy; mjd; th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 60 tpGf;fhL eph;zak; bra;J fl;lzk; jpU;j;jp mikf;fg;gl;lJ/

¶99

(muR Miz vz;/120. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/29/5/2003) (muR Miz vz;/202. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/14/10/2003) (ix) igdhd;rpay; ilk;!; vd;Dk; M';fpy ehspjHpid muR m';fPfhpf;fg;gl;l gl;oaypy; 27/1/2003 Kjy; nrh;j;J. xU gj;jp brd;o kPl;lUf;F U:gha; 7260-? fl;lzk; vd eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;lJ/

¶100

(muR Miz vz;/14. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/27/1/2003)

¶101

(x) jpdg{kp ehspjH;fspd; ntYhh; kw;Wk; Kk;ig Mfpa ,l';fspy; btsptUk; g[jpa gjpg;g[fSf;F mjd; th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 47 tpGf;fhl;oy;. muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhft[k;. Vw;fdnt ,Ue;j gjpg;g[fSf;F muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;jpy; 30 tpGf;fhL cah;j;jp 14/6/2005 Kjy; muR tpsk;gu';fSf;fhd fl;lzk; eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;lJ/

¶102

(muR Miz vz;/100. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/14/6/2005)

¶103

(xi) ,e;jpad; vf;!;gpu!; FGkj;jpy; cs;s. jpdkzp jkpH; ehspjH; epa{ ,e;jpad; vf;!;gpu!; M';fpy ehspjGf;Fk; muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;jpy; 30 tpGf;fhL cah;j;jp (th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 60 tpGf;fhl;ow;F kpfhky;) 1/7/2005 Kjy; muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;lJ/ igdhd;rpay; vf;!;gpu!; vd;Dk; M';fpy ehspjGf;F midj;J gjpg;gpw;F kw;Wk; nkw;Fg; gjpg;gpw;F muR fl;lzj;jpy; muR fl;lzj;jpy; 20 tpGf;fhL cah;j;jp (th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 60 tpGf;fhl;ow;F kpfhky;) 1/7/2005 Kjy; muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;lJ/)

¶104

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

¶105

(muR Miz vz;/132. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/1/7/2005)

¶106

(xii) jpdj;je;jp kw;Wk; khiykyh; Mfpa ehspjH;fSf;F muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;ij ,ul;og;ghf;fp. (th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpw;F kpfhky;) 09/01/2006 Kjy; muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;lJ/

¶107

(muR Miz vz;/12. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyhj;Jiw. ehs;/9/1/2006)

¶108

murpd; ftdkhd ghprPyidf;Fg; gpd;dh; 14/3/2001 Kjy; 9/1/2006 tiu tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; cah;j;jg;gl;l ehspjH;fs; jtpu. (,izg;g[ II-y; cs;s , d';fs;) m';fPfhug; gl;oaypy; cs;s ,ju ehspjH;fSf;F (,izg;g I-y; cs;s , d';fs;) 1/4/2006 md;W ehspjH;fspd; th;j;jff; fl;lzj;ij mog;gilahff; bfhz;L. th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 75% muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf tH';fyhk; vd KobtLf;fg;gl;lJ/ mjdog;gilapy;. 2001 Kjy; 2006 tiu tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; cah;j;jg;gl;l ehspjH;fs; (,izg;g? II) jtpu muR m';fPfhug; gl;oaypYs;s ,ju ehspjH;fSf;F ,e;j Mizapd; ,izg;g[ 1?y;. fhyk;?5?y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sgo. tpsk;guf; fl;lz tpfpjj;ij muR cah;j;jp kWeph;zak; bra;J Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/

¶109

nkny gj;jp 6?y; cah;j;jp eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;l tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; cldoahf eilKiwf;F tUfpwJ/

¶110

midj;J muRj;Jiw jiyth;fSk;. muRj;Jiw epWtd';fspd; eph;thf , af;Feh;fSk;. j';fs; eph;thfj;jpd; fPH;tUk;. tpsk;gu';fs; btspapl mjpfhuk; bgw;Ws;s midj;J rhh;epiy mYtyh;fSf;Fk; jw;bghGJ cah;j;jp eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s muR tpsk;guf; fl;lz tpfpj';fis mDg;gp itj;J. tpsk;gu';fs; btspapLk; bghGJ mf;fl;lz tpfpj';fis mt;tYtyh;fs; jtwhJ gpd;gw;WkhW jFe;j mwpt[iufs; tH';FkhW nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;/

¶111

,t;turhiz epjpj;Jiwapd; m/rh/F/vz; /SS/P/2006, ehs;/02/06/2006?d; xg;g[jYld; btspaplg;gLfpwJ/

¶112

(MSehpd; Mizg;go)

¶113

bt/,iwad;g[ muR brayhsh;/

¶114

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

¶115

,izg ;g [?1

¶116

	I-A (xU gj;jp xU br/	kP/)
T/ vz;/	ehspjH;fspd; bgah;	tpsk;guf; fl;lz tpfpjk; (xU gj;jpx xU br/kP/)	1/4/2006?y; ehspjHpd; th;j;jf tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; 1/4/2006?y; ehspjHpd; th;j;jf tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;jpy; 75 tpGf;fhL tH';fpdhy; tpsk;guf; fl;lzk;/
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4) (5)
	jkpH; ehspjH;fs;		(U:ghapy;)
1	Jpdfud; (8x53)
	brd;id	134-?	1060-? 795-?
	kJiu	59-?	240-? 180-?
	jpUr;rp	59-?	240-? 180-?
	nryk;	42-?	150-? 113-?
	nfhak;g[j;Jhh;	64-?	300-? 225-?
	ntYhh;	41-?	110-? 83-?
	jpUbey;ntyp	54-?	150-? 113-?
	ehfh;nfhtpy;		80-? 60-?
	ghz;or;nrhp	20-?	200-? 150-?
	bg';fS:h;		100-? 75-?
	midj;Jg;	460-?	2630-? 1973-?
	gjpg;g[fs;
2	jpdkyh; (8x53)
	brd;id	90-?	310-? 233-?
	jpUbey;ntyp	40-?	165-? 124-?
	j";rht{h;+ jpUr;rp	67-?	275-? 206-?
	jpz;Lf;fy;+ kJiu	67-?	330-? 248-?
	<nuhL	40-?	130-? 98-?
	nryk;	24-?	130-? 98-?
	ghz;onrhp	50-?	135-? 101-?
	nfhak;g[j;Jhh;	59-?	220-? 165-?

¶117

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

¶118

T/ ehspjH;fspd; bgah; tpsk;guf; 1/4/2006?y; 1/4/2006?y;
vz;/ fl;lz tpfpjk; ehspjHpd; th;j;jf ehspjHpd; th;j;jf
(xU gj;jp x tpsk;guf; tpsk;guf;
xU br/kP/) fl;lzk; fl;lzj;jpy; 75
tpGf;fhL
tH';fpdhy;
tpsk;guf;
fl;lzk;/
ntYhh; 42-? 120-? 90-?
ehfh;nfhtpy; 23-? 165-? 124-?
midj;Jg; 473-? 1925-? 1444-?
gjpg;g[fs;
3 khiyKuR
brd;id 56-? 180-? 135-?
ntYhh 32-? ?
nryk; 35-? ?
jpUr;rp 31-? 75-? 56-?
kJiu 31-? 90-? 68-?
jpUbey;ntyp 18-? 50-? 38-?
nfhak;g[j;Jhh; 59-? ?
midj;Jg; 226-? 350-? 263-?
gjpg;g[fs;
t/vz;/ ehspjH;fspd; tpsk;guf; 1/4/2006?y; 1/4/2006?y;
bgah; fl;lz tpfpjk; ehspjHpd; th;j;jf ehspjHpd; th;j;jf
(xU gj;jp x tpsk;guf; tpsk;guf;
xU br/kP/) fl;lzk; fl;lzj;jpy; 75
tpGf;fhL
tH';fpdhy;
tpsk;guf;
fl;lzk;/
jkpH; ehspjH;fs; (U:ghapy;)
(bjhlh;r;rp)
4 Kubrhyp 90-? 120-? 90-?
5 kJiukzp (8 x
52)
brd;id 31-? ? ?
kJiu 54-? 85-? 64-?
midj;J 72-? ? 8-?
gjpg;g[fs;
6 Fkhp KuR

¶119

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

¶120

T/ ehspjH;fspd; bgah; tpsk;guf; 1/4/2006?y; 1/4/2006?y;
vz;/ fl;lz tpfpjk; ehspjHpd; th;j;jf ehspjHpd; th;j;jf
(xU gj;jp x tpsk;guf; tpsk;guf;
xU br/kP/) fl;lzk; fl;lzj;jpy; 75
tpGf;fhL
tH';fpdhy;
tpsk;guf;
fl;lzk;/
brd;id 72-? 120-? 90-?
ehfh;nfhtpy; 72-? 120-? 90-?
midj;J 136-? 200-? 150-?
gjpg;g[fs;
7 jPf;fjph;
brd;id 41-? 330-? 248-?
kJiu 41-? 270-? 203-?
midj;J 64-? 510-? 383-?
gjpg;g[fs;
8 kf;fs; bra;jp
brd;id 67-? N.A. 67-?
ghz;or;nrhp 67-? 67-?
midj;J 82-? 82-?
(brd;id jtpu)
midj;J 136-? 136-?
(ghz;o jtpu)
9 jkpH;KuR
brd;id 400-? 300-?
kJiu 150-? 113-?
jpUr;rp 36-? 150-? 113-?
nryk; 100-? 75-?
nfhak;g[j;Jhh; 200-? 150-?
ntYhh; 60-? 45-?
jpUbey;ntyp 23-? 75-? 56-?
ehfh;nfhtpy; 50-? 38-?
ghz;or;nrhp 100-? 75-?
midj;Jg; 1285-? 964-?
gjpg;g[fs;
10 tpLjiy 67-? N.A. 67-?

¶121

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

¶122

T/ ehspjH;fspd; bgah; tpsk;guf; 1/4/2006?y; 1/4/2006?y;
vz;/ fl;lz tpfpjk; ehspjHpd; th;j;jf ehspjHpd; th;j;jf
(xU gj;jp x tpsk;guf; tpsk;guf;
xU br/kP/) fl;lzk; fl;lzj;jpy; 75
tpGf;fhL
tH';fpdhy;
tpsk;guf;
fl;lzk;/
11 gpw;gfy; 46-? 70-? 53-?
12 kzpr;Rlh; 60-? N.A. 60-?
13 khiyr;Rlh; (8 82-? 135-? 101-?
x 52)
jkpH; ehspjH;fs; (U:ghapy;)
(bjhlh;r;rp)
14 ek; jpdkjp 28-? N.A. 28-?
15 fhiyf;fjph;
nryk; 120-? 90-?
jpUr;rp 90-? 68-?
bg';fS:h; 50-? 38-?
midj;Jg; gjpg;g[ 64-? 220-? 165-?
16 jpdj;JhJ 90-? N.A. 90-?
17 jpdr;Rlh; 36-? N.A. 36-?
M';fpy ehspjH;fs;
1 nec&dy; vuhy;L
bly;yp 144-? N.A. 144-?
yf;ndh 144-? 144-?
midj;J gjpg;g[ 252-? 252-?
2 me;jkhd; vuhy;l;
fhy; gf;fk; 1800-? N.A. 1800-?
miug; gf;fk; 3420-? 3420-?
KGg; gf;fk; 6750-? 6750-?
(xU gj;jp x xU 36-? 36-?)
br/kP/
3 Mg;lh; Ehd; 67-? 120-? 90-?

¶123

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

¶124

T/ ehspjH;fspd; bgah; tpsk;guf; 1/4/2006?y; 1/4/2006?y;
vz;/ fl;lz tpfpjk; ehspjHpd; th;j;jf ehspjHpd; th;j;jf
(xU gj;jp x tpsk;guf; tpsk;guf;
xU br/kP/) fl;lzk; fl;lzj;jpy; 75
tpGf;fhL
tH';fpdhy;
tpsk;guf;
fl;lzk;/
4 jpcwpltl 180-? N.A. 180-?
5 ,e;J!;jhd; ilk;!;
bly;yp 1054-? N.A. 1054-?
ghl;dh 262-? 262-?
midj;J gjpg;g[ 1117-? 1117-?
cUJ ehspjH;fs;
1 jkpH;ehL 36-? 60-? 45-?
ilk;!;
2 Kry;khd; 36-? 60-? 45-?
kiyahs
ehspjH;
1 nfus fKjp 226-? 850-? 638-?
(midj;J gjpg;g[)
F$uhj;jp ehspjH;
1 re;nj c&; 954-? 1950-? 1463-?
,izg ;g [? I
I-B (xU rJu br/kP/)
M';fpy (xU rJu brd;o kPl;lh; ? U:ghapy;)
ehspjH;fs;
1 jp ,e;J
bjd;dfg; gjpg;g 990-? 1025-? 769-?
midj;Jg; 1057-? 1050-? 788-?
gjpg;g[
2 gprpd!; !;lhz;lh;l;
Kk;ig 226-? 100-? 75-?
bly;yp 226-? 101-? 76-?
fy;fj;jh 175-? 64-? 48-?
brd;id 70-? 36-? 27-?

¶125

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

¶126

T/ ehspjH;fspd; bgah; tpsk;guf; 1/4/2006?y; 1/4/2006?y;
vz;/ fl;lz tpfpjk; ehspjHpd; th;j;jf ehspjHpd; th;j;jf
(xU gj;jp x tpsk;guf; tpsk;guf;
xU br/kP/) fl;lzk; fl;lzj;jpy; 75
tpGf;fhL
tH';fpdhy;
tpsk;guf;
fl;lzk;/
bg';fS:h; 75-? 45-? 34-?
icwjuhghj; 25-? 36-? 27-?
bjd;dfg; gjpg;g 87-? 65-?
mfkjhghj; 28-? 21-?
midj;J gjpg;g[ 599-? 300-? 225-?
3 !;nll;!; nkd;
fy;fj;jh 563-? 170-? 128-?
bly;yp 136-? 60-? 45-?
midj;J gjpg;g[ 571-? 320-? 240-?
4 blypfpuhg; 676-? 850-? 638-?
5 gphpgpu!;
b$h;dy;
Kk;ig 149-? 75-? 56-?
,e;Jhh; 103-? 39-? 29-?
midj;J gjpg;g[ 181-? 93-? 70-?
6 epa{!; Lnl 85-? 75-? 56-?
7 ohpdpo kph;uh;
brd;id 65-? 44-? 33-?
nfhak;g[j;Jhh; 49-? 22-? 17-?
kJiu 49-? 22-? 17-?
midj;J gjpg;g[ 130-? 72-? 54-?
,e;jp ehspjH; (xU rJu brd;o kPl;lh; ? U:ghapy;)
1 uh$!;jhd;
gj;hpfh
brd;id ? 85-? 64-?

¶127

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

¶128

T/	ehspjH;fspd; bgah; tpsk;guf; 1/4/2006?y; 1/4/2006?y;
vz;/	fl;lz tpfpjk; (xU gj;jpx xU br/kP/) ehspjHpd; th;j;jf tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; ehspjHpd; th;j;jf tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;jpy; 75 tpGf;fhL tH';fpdhy; tpsk;guf; fl;lzk;/
	midj;Jg; gjpg;g[ 900-? 1410-? 1058-?
	bjY';F ehspjH;
1	thh;jh
	icwjuhghj; 162-? 132-? 99-?
	tp$athlh 100-? 70-? 53-?
	tprhfg;gl;odk; 90-? 62-? 47-?
	X';nfhy; 49-? 52-? 39-?
	eprhkhghj; 54-? 48-? 36-?
	thuh';fhy; 90-? 54-? 41-?
	uh$ Ke;jphp 90-? 62-? 47-?
	flg;gh 90-? 50-? 38-?
	jpUg;gjp 77-? 54-? 41-?
	midj;J gjpg;g[ 521-? 495-? 371-?
	,izg;g[? I
	I-B (xU rJu br/kP/) M';fpy ehspjH;fs; (xU rJu brd;o kPl;lh; ? U:ghapy;)
1	jp ,e;J
	bjd;dfg; gjpg;g[ 990-? 1025-? 769-?
	midj;Jg; gjpg;g[ 1057-? 1050-? 768-?
2	gprpd!; !; lhz;lh;l;
	Kk;ig 226-? 100-? 75-?
	bly;yp 226-? 101-? 76-?
	fy;fj;jh 175-? 64-? 48-?
	brd;id 70-? 36-? 27-?
	icwjuhghj; 25-? 36-? 27-?

¶129

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

¶130

	bjd;dfg; gjpg;g[	87-?	65-?
	mfkjhghj;	28-?	21-?
	midj;J gjpg;g[	599-? 300-?	225-?
3	!;nll;!; nkd;
	fy;fj;jh	563-? 170-?	128-?
	bly;yp	136-? 60-?	45-?
	midj;J gjpg;g[	571-? 320-?	240-?
4	blypfpuhg;	676-? 850-?	638-?
5	gphpgpu!; b$h;dy;
	Kk;ig ,e;Jhh;	149-? 75-? 103-? 39-?	56-? 29-?
	midj;J gjpg;g[	181-? 93-?	70-?
6	epa{!; Lnl	85-? 75-?	56-?
7	ohpdpo kph;uh;
	brd;id	65-? 44-?	33-?
	nfhak;g[j;Jhh;	49-? 22-?	17-?
	kJiu	49-? 22-?	17-?
	midj;J gjpg;g[	130-? 72-?	54-?
	,e;jp ehspjH;	(xU rJu brd;o kPl;lh;?U:ghapy;)
1	uh$!;jhd; gj;hpfh
	brd;id	? 85-?	64-?
	midj;Jg; gjpg;g[	900-? 1410-?	1058-?
	bjY';F ehspjH;
1	thh;jh
	icwjuhghj;	162-? 132-?	99-?
	tp$athlh	100-? 70-?	53-?
	tprhfg;gl;odk;	90-? 62-?	47-?
	X';nfhy;	49-? 52-?	39-?
	eprhkhghj;	54-? 48-?	36-?
	thuh';fhy;	90-? 54-?	41-?
	uh$ Ke;jphp	90-? 62-?	47-?
	flg;gh	90-? 50-?	38-?

¶131

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

¶132

jpUg;gjp 77-? 54-? 41-?
midj;J gjpg;g[ 521-? 495-? 371-?
,izg ;g [? II
(14.3.2001 Kjy; 9/1/2006 tiuahd fhyj;jpy
tpsk ;guf; fl ;lzk; eph ;zak; bra ;ag ;gl ;l ehspjH ;fs; tptuk
I-A (xU gj ;jp xU br/kP/)
t/vz;/ ehspjH;fspd; bgah; ehspjHpd; th;j;jf jw;nghija muR muR
tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; tpsk;guf; tpsk;gu';fSf;fhf
fl;lz tpfpjk; eph;zak;
(xU gj;jp xU bra;ag;gl;l
br/kP/) murhiz vz;/
kw;Wk;; ehs;/
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 vk;g;sha;bkd;l; rh;tP!; m/M/(o)/vz;/19.
(thu ,jH;) ehs;/22/6/2001
cs;gf;fk; 25000-? 18.750-?
cs; ,Ugf;fk; 40000-? 30.000-?
cs; ml;il gf;fk; 30000-? 22.500-?
btsp ml;ilg; 35000-? 26.250-?
gf;fk;
2 lhf;lh; ekJ vk;/$p/Mh; 120-? 90-? m/M/(o) vz;/139.
ehs;/30/7/2001
3 kf;fs; Fuy; m/M/(o) vz;/170.
ehs;/3/10/2001
brd;id 198-? 73-?
kJiu 99-? 47-?
nfhit 99-? 32-?
midj;Jg; gjpg;g[ 120-?
4 jpdg{kp m/M/(o) vz;/100.
ehs;/14/6/2005
brd;id 240-? 114-?
jpUr;rp 90-? 42-?
jpUbey;ntyp 90-? 59-?
kJiu 90-? 42-?
nryk; 80-? 49-?
nfhit 90-? 42-?

¶133

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

¶134

ntYhh; 75-? 35-?
ghz;o 70-? 31-?
Kk;ig 250-? 118-?
jkpH;ehL & ghz;o 760-? 357-?
jkpH;ehL. ghz;o kw;Wk; 1000-? 470-?
Kk;ig (midj;Jg; gjpg;g[)
5 jpdj;je;jp m/M/(o) vz;/12.
ehs;/9/1/2006
brd;id 920-? 620-?
kJiu 140-? 122-?
jpz;Lf;fy; 70-? 61-?
jpUr;rp 108-? 94-?
j";rht{h; 102-? 89-?
nfhak;g[j;Jhh; 185-? 161-?
<nuhL 72-? 63-?
nryk; 130-? 113-?
jpUbey;ntyp 95-? 83-?
ehfh;nfhtpy; 66-? 57-?
ntYhh; 95-? 83-?
flYhh; 76-? 66-?
ghz;onrhp 80-? 70-?
bg';fS:h; 120-? 104-?
midj;Jg; gjpg;g[ 2.225-? 1786-?
6 khiykyh; m/M/(o) vz;/12.
ehs;/9/1/2006
brd;id 230-? 116-?
kJiu 80-? 56-?
jpUr;rp 70-? 58-?
nfhak;g[j;Jhh; 140-? 108-?
nryk; 85-? 64-?
ghz;or;nrhp 70-? 50-?
ehfh;nfhtpy; 38-? 33-?
<nuhL 38-? 33-?

¶135

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

¶136

	midj;Jg; gjpg;g[	700-? 406-?
7	igdhd;rpay; ilk;!;	9680-? 7260-?	m/M/(o) vz;/14. ehs;/27/1/2003
	kiyahs ehspjH;
8	khj;Ug{kp (brd;id)	47-? 35-?	m/M/(o) vz;/38. ehs;/24/2/2003
	khj;Ug{kp (midj;J gjpg;g[)	702-? 702-?	m/M/(o) vz;/33. ehs;/14/3/2001
	,e;jp ehspjH;fs;	(U:ghapy;)
9	ildpf; $hf;ud;		m/M/(o) vz;/44. ehs;/10/3/2003
	fhd;g{h;	783-? 587
	yf;ndh	765-? 574
	nfhuf;g{h;	360-? 270
	thuzhrp	540-? 405
	myfhghj;	360-? 270
	thuzhrp (k) myfhghj;	700-? 525
	Mf;uh	360-? 270
	bguyp	360-? 270
	bkhujhghj;	180-? 135
	$hd;rp	220-? 165
	kPul;	333-? 250
	nluhL:z;	405-? 304
	bly;yp	450-? 338
	cwprhh; (mhpahdh)	270-? 203
	$ye;jh; (g";rhg;)	450-? 338
	ghl;dh	630-? 473
	nghghy; (k) buth	360-? 270
	cj;jpugpunjrk;	2365-? 1774
	midj;Jg; gjpg;g[	2880-? 2160
10	ildpf; gh!;fh;		m/M/(o) vz;/62. ehs;/27/3/2003
	b$a;g{h;	650-? 455-?
	n$hj;g{h;	270-? 189-?

¶137

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

¶138

cja;g{h; 225-? 158-?
m$;kPh; 210-? 147-?
gPfhdPh; 185-? 130-?
nfhlh 190-? 133-?
_ f';fh efh; 125-? 88-?
nghghy; 325-? 228-?
,e;Jhh; 400-? 280-?
Fthypah; 200-? 140-?
bua;g{h; 275-? 193-?
gpyh!;g{h; 175-? 123-?
ghzpgl; 250-? 175-?
cwprhh; 175-? 123-?
ghpjhghj; 125-? 88-?
midj;Jg; gjpg;g[ 3375-? 2363-?
,izg ;g [? II
I-B (xU rJu br/kP/)
t/vz;/ ehspjH;fspd; bgah; ehspjHpd; jw;nghija muR muR
th;j;jf tpsk;guf; tpsk;gu';fSf;fhf
tpsk;guf; fl;lz tpfpjk; eph;zak;
fl;lzk; (xU gj;jp xU bra;ag;gl;l
br/kP/) murhiz vz;/
kw;Wk;; ehs;/
jkpH; ehspjH;fs; (xU rJu brd;o kPl;lh; ? U:ghapy;)
1 jpdkzp m/M/(o) vz;/132.
ehs;/01/07/2005
brd;id 90-? 49-?
kJiu 65-? 39-?
nfhak;g[j;Jhh; 50-? 30-?
midj;Jg; gjpg;g[ 190-? 114-?
M';fpy ehspjH;fs;
2 epa{ ,e;jpad; vf;!;gpu!;
bjd;dfg; gjpg;g[ 530-? 293-?
3 ,e;jpad; vf;!;gpu!;
tlf;Fg; gjpg;g[ (bly;yp. 280-? 136-?
rz;ofhh;)
nkw;F gjpg;g[ (Kk;ig. g 590-? 206-?
{nd. ehf;g{h;. tnjhuh.
mfkjhghj;)

¶139

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

¶140

midj;Jg; gjpg;g[ 1100-? 660-? 8/12/2005 Kjy;xU
rJu brd;o
kPl;lUf;F U:630-?
jw;fhypfkhf
eph;zak;
bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ
4 igdhd;rpay; vf;!;gpu!; m/M/(o) vz;/132.
ehs;/01/07/2005
brd;id gjpg;g[ 50-? 47-?
bjd;dfg; gjpg;g 130-? 95-?
[ (bfhr;rp. bg';fS:h;.
brd;id)
midj;J gjpg;g 280-? 168-?
(epa{ bly;yp. Kk;ig.
bfhy;fj;jh. rz;ofhh;.
mfkjhghj;. bfhr;rp.
bg';fS:h;. brd;di)
M';fpy ehspjH;fs; (xU rJu brd;o kPl;lh; ? U:ghapy;)
(bjhlh;r;rp)
5 ilk;!; Mg; ,e;jpah m/M/(o) vz;/120.
ehs;/29/05/2003
m/M/(o) vz;/202.
ehs;/14/10/2003
Kk;ig 1200-? 272-?
bly;yp 990-? 132-?
mfkjhghj; 260-? 30-?
bg';fS:h; 610-? 22-?
yf;ndh 275-? 22-?
ghl;dh 170-? 22-?
icwjuhghj; 130-? 42-?
g{nd 350-? 126-?
bfhy;fj;jh 300-? 126-?
midj;Jg; gjpg;g[ 2150-? 794-?
6 vf;fdhkpf; ilk;!k; m/M/(o) vz;/120.
ehs;/29/05/2003
Kk;ig 550-? 59-?
bly;yp 540-? 59-?
mfkjhghj; 190-? 24-?
bg';fS:h; 190-? 35-?
icwjuhghj; 160-? 35-?
brd;id 160-? 39-?

¶141

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

¶142

bfhy;fj;jh 240-? 29-?
midj;Jg; gjpg;g[ 1550-? 280-?
,e;jp ehspjH;
7 etghuj; ilk;!; m/M/(o) vz;/120.
ehs;/29/05/2003
Kk;ig 160-? 24-?
bly;yp 340-? 103-?
midj;Jg; gjpg;g 450-? 127-?
bt/,iwad;g[
muR brayhsh;/
RUf ;fk
tpsk;guk; ? jkpH; tsh;r;rp (k) bra;jpj;Jiw ? jpdkyh; ehspjGf;F gj;jp
brd;o kPl;lh; myfpypUe;J rJu brd;o kPl;lh; myfpw;F khw;wp muR
tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; eph;zak; bra;J ? Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
jkpH; tsh;r;rp (k) bra;jp (tpsk;guk;)j; Jiw
murhiz(g) vz;/66 ehs; 01/07/2015
jpUts;Stuhz;L 2045
kd;kj ? Mdp?16
gof;fg;gl; lJ :-
1) murhiz (g) vz;/ 108. bra;jp kw;Wk; Rw;Wyh (tpsk;guk;)j; Jiw
ehs; 02/06/2006
2) ,af;Feh;. jpdkyh; ehspjH; mth;fspd; fojk; ehs; 13/06/2015
Miz:-
,af;Feh;. jpdkyh; ehspjH; mth;fs; jdJ fojj;jpy;. jpdkyh;
ehspjH; Rkhh; 9 yl;rk; gpujpfs; tpw;gidahtjhft[k; (10/64 yl;rk;
"hapw;Wf;fpHika[k;. 8/97 yl;rk; ,ju thu ehl;fspYk; tpw;gid) 5
kpy;ypad; thrfh;fisf; bfhz;L btsptUtjhft[k;. bgl;nuhypaj;ij
mog;gilahff; bfhz;L mr;rpLk; K:yg; bghUl;fSf;fhd tpiy cah;tpd;
fhuzkhft[k;. mr;rpLk; fhfpj tpiy mjpf cah;tpd; fhuzkhft[k;. etPd
bjhHpy;El;gk; bfhz;l tz;z mr;R ,ae;jpuj;ij th';fp
gad;gLj;Jtjhft[k;. ehspjH; btspf; bfhzUk; gzpapy; Vuhskhd
rpuk';fs; Vw;gl;Ls;sjhf Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shh;/ nkYk;. jw;nghija jpdkyh;
ehspjHpd; th;j;jff; fl;lzj;ij xg;gpLk; nghJ. muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzk;
th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 25% f;F Fiwthf cs;sjhft[k;. fle;j 10 Mz;Lfshf
jpdkyh; ehspjGf;F muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; khw;wpaikf;fhj fhuzj;jhy; kpFe;j
ec&; lk; Vw;gLtijf; fUj;jpy; bfhz;L jpdkyh; ehspjHpd; muR tpsk;guf;
fl;lzj;ij gj;jp brd;o kPl;lhpypUe;J rJu brd;o kPl;lh; myfpw;F khw;wp
mikj;Jk; jpdkyh; ehspjHpd; jw;nghija th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 75% I muR

¶143

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

¶144

tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf eph;zak; bra;J jUkhWk; nfl;Lf;bfhz;Ls;shh;/

¶145

murpd; ftdkhd ghprPyidf;Fg; gpd;dh; muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;ij gj;jp brd;o kPl;lhpypUe;J rJu brd;o kPl;lh; myfpw;F khw;wp mikj;J. jpdkyh; ehspjHpd; gpd;tUk; gjpg;g[fSf;F mjd; th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 75% ?I muR tpsk ;guf; fl ;lzkhf fPH ;f ;fz ;lothW eph ;zak; bra ;J Mizaplg ;gLfpwJ/

¶146

gjpg;g[fs; jw;nghija th;j;jf tpsk;guf;	jw;nghija th;j;jf tpsk;guf; eph;zak; bra;ag;gLk; muR tpsk;guf;
fl;lzk; (xU gj;jp brd;okPl;lh;) (U:gha;)	fl;lzk; gj;jp brd;o kPl;lh; myfpypUe;J xU rJu brd;o kPl;lh; myfpw;F khw;wp (U:gha;) fl;lzk; (th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy;75% xU rJu brkP) (U:gha;)
brd;id 1400	350 263
kJiu 1120	280 210
nfhak;g[j;Jhh; 920	230 173
ntYhh; 408	102 77
<nuhL 288	72 54
nryk; 288	72 54
gjpg;g[fs; jw;nghija th;j;jf	jw;nghija th;j;jf eph;zak; bra;ag;gLk; muR
tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; (xU gj;jp brd;okPl;lh;) (U:gha;)	tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; gj;jp brd;o kPl;lh; myfpypUe;J xU rJu brd;o kPl;lh; myfpw;F ; tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; (th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy;75% xU rJu brkP) (U:gha;)
	khw;wp (U:gha;)
jpUr;rp 460	115 86
jpUbey;ntyp 420	105 79
ehfh;nfhtpy; 280	70 53
j";rht{h; 432	108 81
ghz;or;nrhp 500	125 94

¶147

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

¶148

gjpg;g[fs; jw;nghija jw;nghija eph;zak;
th;j;jf th;j;jf bra;ag;gLk; muR
tpsk;guf; tpsk;guf; tpsk;guf;
fl;lzk; (xU fl;lzk; gj;jp fl;lzk;
gj;jp brd;o kPl;lh; (th;j;jff;
brd;okPl;lh;) myfpypUe;J xU fl;lzj;jpy; 75%
(U:gha;) rJu brd;o xU rJu brkP)
kPl;lh; myfpw;F (U:gha;)
khw;wp
(U:gha;)
midj;Jg; 6516 1629 1222
gjpg;g[
3) ,t;tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; ,t;turhiz btspaplg;gLk; ehs; Kjy;
mkYf;F tUfpwJ/
4) ,t;turhiz epjpj;Jiwapd; m/rh/F/ vz; 2947/FS/P/2015
ehs;/30/06/2015?d; ,irt[ld; btspaplg;gLfpwJ/
(MSehpd; Mizg;go)
K:/,uhrhuhk;
muR brayhsh;
RUf ;fk
tpsk;guk; ? jkpH; tsh;r;rp (k) bra;jpj;Jiw ? jpdj;je;jp ehspjGf;F muR
tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; eph;zak; bra;J Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
jkpH; tsh;r;rp (k) bra;jp (tpsk;guk;)j;Jiw
murhiz(g) vz;/94 ehs; 28/09/2015
jpUts;Stuhz;L 2046
kd;kj ?
g[ul;lhrp?11
gof;fg;gl; lJ :-
1) murhiz (g) vz;/ 640. jkpH; tsh;r;rp. mwepiya';fs; (k) bra;jp
(tpsk;guk;)j;Jiw ehs; 28/10/2009
2) ,af;Feh;. jpdj;je;jp ehspjH; mth;fspd; fojk; vz; HA/59,
ehs; 24/09/2015
Miz:-
nkny ,uz;lhtjhf gof;fg;gl;l ,af;Feh;. jpdj;je;jp. ehspjH;. brd;id
mth;fspd; fojj;jpy; jpdj;je;jp ehspjHpd; jw;nghija tpw;gid gpujpfspd;
vz;zpf;if 16.81.804 gpujpfshf cs;sJ vd;Wk; ,J fle;j 9 Mz;LfspypUe;J
8.17.194. ypUe;J ,uz;L kl';fhf cah;e;Js;sJ vdt[k; jpdj;je;jp ehspjGf;F 6
Mz;LfSf;F Kd; muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; cah;j;jp eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;lJ
vd;Wk; mf;fl;lzk; jpdj;je;jp ehspjGf;fhd jw;nghija th;j;jff; fl;lzj;ij

¶149

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

¶150

xg;gpLk; nghJ. muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy 23% Mf cs;sJ vdt[k;. nkYk;. jw;nghija muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;jpy; tpsk;guk; gpuRhpg;gjhy;. brd;id. g[Jr;nrhp. bg';fS:h; kw;Wk; Kk;ig gjpg;g[fs; jtpu gpw gjpg;g[fspy; cw;gj;jpr; bryit <Lfl;l ,aytpy;iy vd;wk;. gj;jphpif fhfpjk; kw;Wk; jahhpg;g [r; bryt[fs; cah;it <Lbra;a ,ayhj epiy vdt[k;. Vg;uy; 2015 jp';fspy; khw;wpaikf;fg;gl;Ls;s jpdj;je;jp ehspjHpd; th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 85% ?I muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf eph;zak; bra;J jUkhWk; nfl;Lf; bfhz;Ls;shh;/

¶151

murpd; ftdkhd ghprPyidf;Fg; gpd;dh; jpdj;je;jp ehspjHpd; gpd;tUk; gjpg;g[fSf;F mjd; th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 75% ?I muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf fPH;f;fz;lthW eph;zak; bra;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/

¶152

01/04/2015 Kjy; eph;zak;
th;j;jf tpsk;guf; bra;ag;gLk;
fl;lzk; muR
tpsk;guf;
fl;lzk;
gjpg;g[fs;
(th;j;jff;
fl;lzj;jpy
; 75%)
(xU rJu brd;o kPl;lh;)
(U:gha;)
brd;id 854 641
kJiu 132 99
jpz;Lf;fy; 64 48
jpUr;rp 107 80
j";rht{h; 105 79
nfhak;g[j;Jhh; 137 103
jpUg;g{h; 60 45
<nuhL 68 51
nryk; 132 99
jpUbey;ntyp 125 94
ehfh;nfhtpy; 95 71
ntYhh; 83 62
flYhh; 70 53
g[Jr;nrhp 72 54
bg';fS:h; 93 70

¶153

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

¶154

01/04/2015 Kjy; eph;zak;
th;j;jf tpsk;guf; bra;ag;gLk;
fl;lzk; muR
tpsk;guf;
fl;lzk;
gjpg;g[fs;
(th;j;jff;
fl;lzj;jpy
; 75%)
(xU rJu brd;o kPl;lh;)
(U:gha;)
Kk;ig 77 58
midj;Jg; 2150 1613
gjpg;g[
3) ,t;tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; ,t;turhiz btspaplg;gLk; ehs; Kjy;
mkYf;F tUfpwJ/
4) ,t;turhiz epjpj;Jiwapd; m/rh/F/ vz; 4179/FS/P/2015
ehs;/28/09/2015?d; ,irt[ld; btspaplg;gLfpwJ/
(MSehpd; Mizg;go)
K:/,uhrhuhk;
muR brayhsh;
RUf ;fk
tpsk;guk; ? jkpH; tsh;r;rp (k) bra;jpj;Jiw ? kf;fs; Fuy; jkpH; khiy
ehspjH; kw;Wk; ohpdpl;o kpuh; M';fpy khiy ehspjH; Mfpatw;wpw;F muR
tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; eph;zak; bra;J ? Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
jkpH; tsh;r;rp (k) bra;jp (tpsk;guk;)j;Jiw
murhiz(g) vz;/116 ehs; 18/11/2015
jpUts;Stuhz;L 2046
kd;kj ? fhh;j;jpif?2
gof;fg;gl; lJ :-
1/ murhiz (o) vz; 298. jkpH; tsh;r;rp. mwepiya';fs; (k) bra;jp
(tpsk;guk;)j; Jiw ehs; 04/08/2011
2/ murhiz (o) vz; 288. jkpH; tsh;r;rp. mwepiya';fs; (k) bra;jp
(tpsk;guk;)j; Jiw ehs; 31/12/2012
3/ Mrphpah; (k) btspaPl;lhsh;. kf;fs; Fuw; kw;Wk; ohpdpl;o kpuh; ehspjH;fs;.
brd;id mth;fspd; foj ehs; 27/08/2015
?????

¶155

Miz:-

¶156

nkny K:d;whtjhf gof;fg;gl;l fojj;jpy; kf;fs; Fuy; kw;Wk; ohpdpl;o kpuh; Mfpa ehspjH;fspd; Mrphpah;?btspaPllhsh;. mth;fs;. fle;j rpy Mz;Lfshf

¶157

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

¶158

gj;jphpiffSf;F njitahd fhfpjk;. mr;rpLk; ik. Mg;brl; gpnsl; kw;Wk; K:yg; bghUl;fspd; tpiy cah;t[ kw;Wk; CHpah;fspd; Cjpa cah;t[ nghd;w fhuz';fspdhy; nkw;fz;l ,uz;L ehspjH;fspd; th;j;jf tpsk;guf; fl;lz';fis cah;j;j ntz;oa epiy Vw;gl;Ls;sJ vd;Wk; vdnt. me;ehspjH;fspd; jw;nghija th;j;jf fl;lzj;jpy; 75% ?I muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf eph;zak; bra;J jUkhWk; nfl;Lf;bfhz;Ls;shh;/

¶159

murpd; ftdkhd ghprPyidf;Fg; gpd;dh; kf;fs; Fuy; jkpH; kw;Wk; ohpdpl;o kpuh; M';fpyk; Mfpa khiy ehspjH;fspd; gpd;tUk; gjpg;g[fSf;F mjd; th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 75% ?I muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf fPH;f;fz;lthW eph;zak; bra;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/

¶160

jw;nghija th;j;jf jw;nghJ
tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; muR
eph;zak;
bra;a[k;
kf;fs; Fuy; tpsk;guf;
jkpH; khiy fl;lzk;
ehspjHpd;
(th;j;jff;
gjpg;g[fs;
fl;lzj;jp
y; 75%)
(xU rJu brd;o kPl;lh;)
(U:gha;)
brd;id 360 270
kJiu 320 240
nfhak;g[j;Jhh; 320 240
jkpH;ehL 900 675
gjpg;g[
(midj;Jg;
gjpg;g[)
brd;id 360 270
kJiu 320 240
nfhak;g[j;Jhh; 320 240
jkpH;ehL 900 375
gjpg;g[
(midj;Jg;
gjpg;g[)

¶161

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

¶162

,t;tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; ,t;turhiz btspaplg;gLk; ehs; Kjy; mkYf;F tUfpwJ/

¶163

,t;turhiz epjpj;Jiwapd; m/rh/F/vz; 4865/FS/P/2015 ehs;/11/11/2015?d; ,irt[ld; btspaplg;gLfpwJ/ (MSehpd; Mizg;go)

¶164

K:/,uhrhuhk; muR brayhsh;

¶165

RUf ;fk tpsk;guk; ? jkpH; tsh;r;rp (k) bra;jpj;Jiw ? jp epa{ ,e;jpad; vf;!;gpu!; (jkpH;ehL kw;Wk; bjd;dfg; gjpg;g[) kw;Wk; jpdkzp Mfpa ehspjH;fSf;F muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; eph;zak; bra;J ? Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/

¶166

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? jkpH; tsh;r;rp (k) bra;jp (tpsk;guk;)j;Jiw murhiz(g) vz;/28 ehs; 22/02/2016 jpUts;Stuhz;L 2047 kd;kj tUlk;?khrp?10 gof;fg;gl; lJ :- 1/ murhiz (o) vz; 142. jkpH; tsh;r;rp (k) bra;jp Jiw. ehs; 30/12/2014 2/ Jizj; jiyth; (khh;f;bfl;o';). jp epa{ ,e;jpad; vf;!;gpu!; ehspjH; kw;Wk; jpdkzp ehspjH;. brd;id mth;fspd; fojk; ehs; 23/12/2015/ ????? Miz:nkny ,uz;lhtjhfg; gof;fg;gl;l fojj;jpy; jp epa{ ,e;jpad; vf;!;gpu!; kw;Wk; jpdkzp Mfpa ehspjH;fspd; Jizj; jiyth; (khh;f;bfl;o';) mth;fs; jdJ fojj;jpy;. bra;jpj;jhs; fhfpjj;jpd; tpiy mjpfkhf tpiy cah;t[ Vw;gl;Ls;sjhYk; kw;Wk; ,ju mr;rpLk; bghUl;fs; mjpf tpiy cah;t[ Vw;gl;Ls;sjhYk;. jp epa{ ,e;jpad; vf;!;gpu!; ehspjH; kw;Wk; jpdkzp ehspjH;fspd; th;j;jf tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; khw;wp mikf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhy;. jp epa{ ,e;jpad; vf;!;gpu!; kw;Wk; jpdkzp Mfpa ehspjH;fSf;F th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 85 rjtpfpjj;ij muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf eph;zak; bra;a[khWk;. jpdkzp ehspjHpd; g[jpa gjpg;ghd ehfg;gl;odk; gjpg;gpw;Fk; muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; eph;zak; bra;a[khWk; nfl;Lf; bfhz;Ls;shh;/ 2) murpd; ftdkhd ghprPyidf;Fg;g gpd;dh; jp epa{ ,e;jpad; vf;!;gpu!; ehspjHpd; (jkpH;ehL kw;Wk; bjd;dfk;) gjpg;g[fSf;Fk; kw;Wk; jpdkzp ehspjH;fspd; gjpg;g[fSf;Fk; mjd; th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 75% ?I muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf eph;zak; bra;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/

¶167

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

¶168

jw;nghija eph;zak;
th;j;jf bra;ag;gL
tpsk;guf; k; muR
ehspjH;fspd; bgah; fl;lzk; tpsk;guf;
t/vz;/
kw;Wk; gjpg;g[fs; fl;lzk;
(xU rJu brd;o kPl;lh;)
(U:gha;) (U:gha;)
1) epa{ ,e;jpad; vf;!;gpu!;
jkpH;ehL gjpg;g[ 1300 975
bjd;dfg; gjpg;g[ 3000 2250
brd;id 385 289
kJiu 135 101
nfhak;g[j;Jhh; 170 128
jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp 110 83
jpUbey;ntyp 110 83
ntYhh; 80 60
jh;kg[hp 70 53
tpGg;g[uk; 70 53
ehfg;gl;odk; 30 23
(g[jpa gjpg;g[)
jkpH;ehL 1000 750
3) ,t;tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; ,t;turhiz btspaplg;gLk; ehs; Kjy;
mkYf;F tUfpwJ/
4) ,t;turhiz epjpj;Jiwapd; m/rh/F/vz; 582/FS/P/2016
ehs;/20/02/2016?d; xj;jpirt[ld; btspaplg;gLfpwJ/
(MSehpd; Mizg;go)
b$/FkuFUgud;
,af;Feh;. bra;jp kf;fs; bjhlh;g[ kw;Wk;
mYtyhy; muR ,izr; brayhsh;/
RUf ;fk
tpsk;guk; ? bra;jp kf;fs; bjhlh;g[j;Jiw ? brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk;
01/06/2017 md;W hpl; kD vz;/6374. 6375. 6394 kw;Wk; 8242-2017?y;
tH';fpa jPh;g;g[iuapd; mog;gilapy; jpdfud; kw;Wk; jkpH; KuR Mfpa

¶169

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

¶170

jkpH; ehspjH;fspd; muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;ij kW eph;zak; bra;J ? Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/

¶171

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? jkpH; tsh;r;rp (k) bra;jp (tpsk;guk;)j;Jiw murhiz(g) vz;/118 ehs; 05/10/2017 jpUts;Stuhz;L 2048 ncwtpsk;gp?g[ul;lhrp?19 gof;fg;gl;lJ :-

¶172

1/ brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk; 01/06/2017 md;W hpl; kD vz;/6374. 6375. 6394 kw;Wk; 8242-2017?y; tH';fpa jPh;g;g[iu ehs;/ 01/06/2017/ 2/ jiyik bghJ nkyhsh;. jpdfud; ehspjH; mth;fspd; 5/9/2017 ehspl;l fojk;/ 3/ jiyik bghJ nkyhsh;. jkpH;KuR ehspjH; mth;fspd; 5/9/2017 ehspl;l fojk;/ ////// Miz:Kjyhtjhf gof;fg;gl;l brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk; 1/6/2017 md;W tH';fg;gl;l jPh;g;g[iuapy; K:d;W tHpfhl;Ljy;fspy; ,uz;lhtJ tHpfhl;Ljyhf "jpdfud; " kw;Wk; "jkpH;KuR; " Mfpa jkpH; ehspjH;fSf;F muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;ij cah;j;jp eph;zak; bra;a Mizapl;Ls;sJ/

¶173

2/ ,uz;lhtJ kw;Wk; K:d;whtjhf gof;fg;gl;l foj';fspy; jpdfud; kw;Wk; jkpH;KuR ehspjH;fspd; jiyik bghJ nkyhsh;fs; Mfpnahh; bjhLj;j upl; kD vz; 6374. 6375. 6394 kw;Wk; 8242-2017?d; kPJ tH';fpa jPh;g;g[iuapd; mog;gilapy; jpdfud; kw;Wk; jkpH; KuR Mfpa jkpH; ehspjH;fspd; muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzj;ij kW eph;zak; bra;a[khW nfl;Lf; bfhz;Ls;sdh;/

¶174

3/ murpd; ftdkhd ghprPyidf;Fg; gpd;dh;. brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk; 01/06/2017 md;W hpl; kD vz; 6374. 6375. 6394 kw;Wk; 8242-2017?y; tH';fpa jPh;g;g[iuapd; mog;gilapy; jpdfud; kw;Wk; jkpH; KuR Mfpa jkpH; ehspjH;fspd; jw;nghija th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 75 tpGf;fhl;oid muR tpsk;guf; fl;lzkhf fPH;f;fz;lthW eph;zak; bra;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/

¶175

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

¶176

jpdfud; ehspjH; tpsk ;guf; fl ;lzk

¶177

jpdfud; ehspjHpd; gjpg;g[ jpdfud; ehspjHpd; jw;nghija th;j;jf tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; jpdfud; ehspjGf;F jw;nghJ muR eph;zak; bra;a[k; fl;lzk; (th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 75%) (rJu brd;o kPl;lh;) (U:gha;)
brd;id 765 574
nfhak;g[j;Jhh; 215 161
kJiu 217 163 jpUr;rp 215 161
nryk; 153 115
ntYhh; 108 81
jpUbey;ntyp 104 78
ehfh;nfhtpy; 83 62
ghz;or;nrhp (flYhh;. 141 106
tpGg;g[uk;)
jkpH;ehL ?? 1501
bg';fS:U 90 68
Kk;ig 146 110
bly;yp 103 77
midj;Jg; gjpg;g[ 2177 1633
jkpH;KuR ehspjH;tpsk;guf;fl;lzk
gjpg;g[ jkpH;KuR ehspjHpd; jw;nghija th;j;jf tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; jkpH;KuR ehspjGf;F jw;nghJ muR eph;zak; bra;a[k; fl;lzk; (th;j;jff; fl;lzj;jpy; 75%)
(rJu brd;o kPl;lh;) (U:gha;)
brd;id 244 183
nfhak;g[j;Jh; 121 91
kJiu 92 69
jpUr;rp 92 69
nryk; 104 78

¶178

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

¶179

gjpg;g[ jkpH;KuR ehspjHpd; jkpH;KuR ehspjGf;F
jw;nghija th;j;jf jw;nghJ muR
tpsk;guf; fl;lzk; eph;zak; bra;a[k;
fl;lzk; (th;j;jff;
fl;lzj;jpy; 75% )
ntYhh; 53 40
jpUbey;ntyp 44 33
ehfh;nfhtpy; 38 29
ghz;or;nrhp (flYhh;. 76 54
tpGg;g[uk;)
jkpH;ehL 864 649
midj;Jg; gjpg;g[ 864 649
4) ,t;thiz epjpj;Jiwapd; m/rh/F/vz;/369- jt(k)(br)Jiw-2017
ehs;/27/9/2017?d; ,irt[ld; btspaplg;gLfpwJ/
5) ,t;thiz cldoahf eilKiwf;F tUfpwJ/
(MSehpd; Mizg;go)
,uh/bt';fnlrd;
muR brayhsh;
17. Reading of the Government Orders shows that
depending upon the circulation, region, rates are
fixed. Contention of the learned Advocate General that
Central Government advertisements are normally
published in national newspapers, with wide
circulation and not in all regional newspapers,
appears to be reasonable and also acceptable because,
regional newspapers with all certainty, cannot be said
to be widely circulated, throughout the State of
Tamilnadu. Contents of the Go's extracted supra, speak
for themselves. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the difference in the advertisement rate, depending
upon the circulation of the newspapers, in the above
mentioned Government Orders, would speak for itself.

¶180

Main contention of the petition is that when Makkal Kural (Tamil) and Trinity Mirror (English) have accepted the rate at Rs.13.49/- per sq.cm, for advertising, and to the effect, an order has been issued by the Ministry of Information and Broad Casting, Government of India, New Delhi. Government of Tamil Nadu is spending huge money on Makkal Kural (Tamil) and Trinity Mirror (English) newspapers. Advertising Rate Contract Agreement of the above dailies, are extracted hereunder:

¶181

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

¶182

"Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Government of India

¶183

Soochna Bhawan, Phase 4, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

¶184

ADVERTISING RATE, CONTRACT AGREEMENT

¶185

This agreement is being entered into between. DAVP, Ministry of I&B, Government of India and the publisher mentioned below, as per terms and conditions given as under:

¶186

DAVP Code : 400036 RNI Regn. : 024383/73 [CA][Standard][UNBOUND] [Colour] Name, Language : MAKKAL KURAL, TAMIL Peridicity, Place : DAILY (E), CHENNAI Address : 1,FIRST MAIN ROAD, UNITED INDIA COLONY, KODAMBAKKAM-24, TAMIL NADU CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600024. Telephone : 44-24733900

¶187

(a) This agreement is valid from : 01/01/2016 to 31/12/2018

¶188

(b) Circulation Accepted : 16860 [ Sixteen Thousand

¶189

Eight Hundred Sixty]

¶190

¶191

Thirteen and Paise Forty Nine Only]

¶192

(d) Net Rate after agency discount of 15% to DAVP :

¶193

Rs.11.4700 [Rupees Eleven and Paise Forty Seven Only]

¶194

(Additional discount of 1.0% for UPSC 4 SSC advts)

¶195

(e) These rates will be revised in case of any change in the basis of the calculation.

¶196

The publisher will not offer a lower safe than this to any other advertiser. DAVP will automatically reduce the rate accordingly.

¶197

Circulation figures and other information provided by the publisher, if found incorrect later, may lead to stoppage of Government advertisements, recovery of payments and any other action deemed appropriate by Government.

¶198

Payment will be made by DAVP as per actual;space used, on receipt of published copy of the advertisement along with bills.

¶199

Refusal to publish advertisement released by DAVP may lead to cancellation of empanelment.

¶200

The publisher shall intimate immediately to DAVP of any change in printer/publisher/size/periodicity/language/ place of publication, etc.

¶201

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

¶202

The publisher accepts all the terms and conditions of the Advertising Policy of the Government as amended,from time-to-time and notified on the website of DAVP http://www.davp.nic.in

¶203

The rates for colour advertisements will be higher by 40% as compared to the rates for black and white advertisements.

¶204

Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

¶205

Government of India

¶206

Soochna Bhawan, Phase 4, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

¶207

ADVERTISING RATE, CONTRACT AGREEMENT

¶208

This agreement is being entered into between. DAVP, Ministry of I&B, Government of India and the publisher mentioned below, as per terms and conditions given as under:

¶209

DAVP Code : 100660 RNI Regn. : 062432/95 [CA][Standard][UNBOUND] [Colour] Name, Language : TRINITY MIRROR, ENGLISH Peridicity, Place : DAILY (M), CHENNAI Address : No.1, FIRST MAIN ROAD, UNITED INDIA COLONY, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600024.

¶210

Telephone : 44-24733910

¶211

(a) This agreement is valid from : 01/01/2016 to 31/12/2018

¶212

(B) Agreed Rate per Sq.cm : Rs.13.4900/- [Rupees "Thirteen and Paise Forty Nine Only]

¶213

(c) Net Rate after agency discount of 15% to DAVP : Rs.11.4700 [Rupees Eleven and Paise Forty Seven Only] (Additional discount of 1.0% for UPSC 4 SSC advts)

¶214

(d) These rates will be revised in case of any change in the basis of the calculation.

¶215

The publisher will not offer a lower safe than this to any other advertiser. DAVP will automatically reduce the rate accordingly.

¶216

Circulation figures and other information provided by the publisher, if found incorrect later, may lead to stoppage of Government advertisements, recovery of payments and any other action deemed appropriate by Government.

¶217

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

¶218

Payment will be made by DAVP as per actual;space used, on receipt of published copy of the advertisement along with bills.

¶219

Refusal to publish advertisement released by DAVP may lead to cancellation of empanelment.

¶220

The publisher shall intimate immediately to DAVP of any change in printer/publisher/size/periodicity/language/place of publication, etc.

¶221

The publisher accepts all the terms and conditions of the Advertising Policy of the Government as amended,from time-to-time and notified on the website of DAVP http://www.davp.nic.in

¶222

The rates for colour advertisements will be higher by 40% as compared to the rates for black and white advertisements.

¶223

Authorised Signatory Authorised Signatory On behalf of Publisher On behalf of DAVP

¶224

Signature :.......................... Signature :..................... Name :.......................... Name :..................... Designation:.......................... Designation :.....................

¶225

From the averments and submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it could be deduced that when Government Orders, extracted supra, contain details of the rates of advertisement, of various newspapers, the petitioner is aggrieved only against two newspapers, namely, Makkal Kural (Tamil) and Trinity Mirror (English). Reasons are best known to the petitioner.

¶226

Going through the various Government Orders, issued from time to time, we are of the view that State Government have considered the rates of advertisement, quoted by various newspapers, on the basis of circulation in a specified region and issued orders from time to time. Let us consider few cases, as to when a writ of Mandamus can be issued. Writ of mandamus cannot be issued merely because, a person is praying for. One must establish the right first and then he must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for a mandamus. The said position is well settled in a series of decisions.

¶227

(a) In the decision reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309 (State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors.) in

¶228

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

¶229

paragraph 10, the Apex Court held as follows:

¶230

...Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition....

¶231

(b) In the decision reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150 (Union of India v. S.B. Vohra) the Supreme Court considered the said issue and held that 'for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so.

¶232

(c) In the decision reported in (2008) 2 SCC 280 (Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain) in paragraphs 11 and 12 the Supreme Court held thus, 11. The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.: Note 187.-Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed.

¶233

Note 192.-Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and

¶234

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

¶235

without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty.

¶236

Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. 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.

¶237

When a Writ of Mandamus can be issued, has been summarised in Corpus Juris Secundum, as follows:

¶238

“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

¶239

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

¶240

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." (emphasis supplied)

¶241

A prerogative writ, like, a Mandamus cannot be demanded ex debito justiatiae, but it can be issued by the court in its discretion, for which, it must be shown that, there is a non discretionary legal duty upon the authority against whom, the relief is sought for and that the person approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to prove that he has a legal right to be enforced against the authority, for the failure of performance of a legal or statutory duty, by the authority against whom, the relief is sought for.

¶242

Prayer is to reduce the rate of advertisement. Mandamus cannot be issued to annul a contract entered into between the parties.

¶243

Contention that the Government Orders do not mention about the colour advertisement and therefore, double rate fixed is incorrect, cannot be countenanced, as there is a clear mention in the rate card by one of the newspapers, which according to the Government, is the norm adopted, for all the newspapers.

¶244

Contention that the abovesaid two dailies, are not included in the Audit Bureau of Circular (In short "ABC"), is not supported with any materials. When Government have adopted a uniform pattern, for all the newspapers, the petitioner has chosen to file the instant writ petition, only against the abovesaid newspapers alone. Petition appears to be motivated.

¶245

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

¶246

While entertaining a Public Interest Litigation, Court is not bound to issue notice to the respondent and conduct a roving enquiry into all the allegations made in the affidavit, when there is not even an effort made by the person, who claims to be a public interest litigant, to obtain material documents to support his averments. If that exercise has to be done, by the Courts then, in every case, an applicant may throw bald allegations, against anybody, and pray that Courts, should conduct a roving enquiry, in respect of each and every allegation made.

¶247

Going through the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovesaid judgments, we are of the view that it is the first and foremost duty of a probono litigant to show that he has taken efforts to obtain information required, to be placed before a Court, furnish material facts, and substantiate the cause for a bonafide public interest litigation. Explaining the distinction between pleadings and proof, required in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and pleadings in the Civil Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.13, in Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in 1988 (4) SCC 534, held as follows:

¶248

".... In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evident which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it."

¶249

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

¶250

In the light of the decisions and discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.”

¶251

9. We have considered decisions relating to public interest writ petitions, which among others are extracted hereunder:-

¶252

(i) In S.P.Anand v. H.D.Deve Gowda, reported in 1996 (6) SCC 734, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 18, held as follows:

¶253

"It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to espouse a public cause, he owes it to the public as well as to the court that he does not rush to court without undertaking a research, even if he is qualified or competent to raise the issue. Besides, it must be remembered that a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on half-baked information without proper research or by persons who are not qualified and competent to raise such issues as the rejection of such a petition may affect third party rights. Lastly, it must also be borne in mind that no one has a right to the waiver of the locus standi rule and the court should permit it only when it is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings is in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations. So also the court must be careful to ensure that the process of the Court is not sought to be abused by a person who desires to persist with his point of view, almost carrying it to the point of obstinacy, by filling a series of petitions refusing to accept the Court's earlier decisions as concluding the point. We say this because when we drew the attention of the petitioner to earlier decisions of this Court, he brushed them aside, without so much as showing willingness to deal with them and without giving them a second look, as having become stale and irrelevant by passage of time and challenged their correctness on the specious plea that they needed reconsideration. Except for saying that they

¶254

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

¶255

needed reconsideration he had no answer to the correctness of the decisions. Such a casual approach to considered decisions of this Court even by a person well-versed in law would not be countenanced. Instead, as pointed out earlier, he referred to decisions having no bearing on the question, like the decisions on cow slaughter cases, freedom of speech and expresssion, uniform civil code, etc., we need say no more except to point out that indiscriminate of this important lever of public interest litigation would blunt the lever itself."

¶256

(ii) In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2000 (10) SCC – 664, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-

¶257

“232. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the Court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is, in our constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The Court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the Court's jurisdiction.

¶258

At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power, the Court should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or functions. The Courts cannot run the Government nor can the administration indulge in abuse or non-use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under values of the Constitution and the rights of Indians. The Courts must therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the Court will not interfere. When there is a valid law requiring the Government to act in a particular manner the Court ought not to, without striking down the law, give any direction which is not in accordance with law. In other words, the Court itself is not above the law.

¶259

In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government the Courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the

¶260

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

¶261

Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation, the Court should not refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the Court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision.”

¶262

The above mentioned observations have been quoted with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BALCO EMPLOYEES' UNION (REGD) Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS {2002 (2) SCC – 333}.

¶263

(iii) In Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India reported in 2002 (2) SCC 333, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that,

¶264

"Public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz. "litigation in the interest of the public."

¶265

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

¶266

In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court.

¶267

Judicial interference by way of PIL is available if there is injury to public because of dereliction of constitutional or statutory obligations on the part of the Government. Here it is not so and in the sphere of economic policy or reform the court is not the appropriate forum. Every matter of public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject-matter of PIL. Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of the country. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or noncompliance by the State with its constitutional or statutory duties. None of these contingencies arise in this present case.

¶268

(iv) In Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and another vs. C.K.Rajan and others, reported in 2003 (7) SCC 546, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

¶269

The courts exercising their power of judicial review found to their dismay that the poorest of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate, the urban and rural unorganized labour sector, women, children, those handicapped by “ignorance, indigence and illiteracy” and other downtrodden persons have either no access to justice or had been denied justice. A new branch of proceedings known as “social action litigation” or “public interest litigation” was evolved with a view to render complete justice to the aforementioned classes of persons. It expanded its wings in course of time. The courts in pro bono publico granted relief to inmates of prisons, provided legal aid, directed speedy trials, maintenance of human dignity and covered several other areas. Representative actions, pro bono publico and test litigations were entertained in

¶270

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

¶271

keeping with the current accent on justice to the common man and a necessary disincentive to those who wish to bypass real issues on merits by suspect reliance on peripheral procedural shortcomings. (See Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai (1976) 3 SCC 832)

¶272

But with the passage of time, things started taking different shapes. The process was sometimes abused. Proceedings were initiated in the name of public interest litigation for ventilating private disputes. Some petitions were publicity-oriented.

¶273

The principles evolved by this Court in this behalf may be suitably summarized as under: (i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court.

¶274

The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfil its constitutional promises. (See S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [1981 Supp SCC 87] , People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [(1982) 2 SCC 494 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 262] , Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [AIR 1963 SC 1638 : (1964) 1 SCR 561] and Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36] .)

¶275

(ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of the public vis-à-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. (See Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail [(1978) 4 SCC 104 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 542] and Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 23] .)

¶276

(iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the

¶277

International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial.

¶278

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

¶279

In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani [(1979) 4 SCC 167 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 934 : AIR 1979 SC 468] it was held: (SCC p. 169, para 2)

¶280

“2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner's grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.”

¶281

(See also Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [(2003) 6 SCC 230 : (2003) 5 Scale 138] .)

¶282

(iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. [See Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 568 : AIR 1981 SC 344] , S.P. Gupta [1981 Supp SCC 87] , People's Union for Democratic Rights [(1982) 2 SCC 494 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 262] , D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar [(1987) 1 SCC 378] and BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India [(2002) 2 SCC 333] .]

¶283

(v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha [(1984) 3 SCC 161 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 389 : (1984) 2 SCR 67] .)

¶284

(vi) Although procedural laws apply to PIL cases but the question as to whether the

¶285

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

¶286

principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depends on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. [See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] and Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) [(1986) 1 SCC 100]

¶287

(vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. (See Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India [1989 Supp (1) SCC 251] .)

¶288

(viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (See Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr Mahesh Madhav Gosavi [(1987) 1 SCC 227] .)

¶289

(ix) The Court in special situations may appoint a Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such Committee. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha [(1984) 3 SCC 161 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 389 : (1984) 2 SCR 67] , Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar [1989 Supp (1) SCC 644] and A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu [(1999) 2 SCC 718]) In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. [(1987) 2 SCC 295] this Court held: (SCC pp. 334-35, para 61)

¶290

“61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action on when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants.”

¶291

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

¶292

In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36] this Court opined: (SCC p. 348, para 109) "109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.” The Court will not ordinarily transgress into a policy. It shall also take utmost care not to transgress its jurisdiction while purporting to protect the rights of the people from being violated.

¶293

(V) In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., reported in 2004 (3) SCC 349, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering few decisions, on the aspect of public interest litigation, observed as follows:

¶294

"4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke ones into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will

¶295

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

¶296

alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary [1992 (4) SCC 305] and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R.Srinivas v. R.M.Premchand (1994 (6) SCC 620).

¶297

It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression 'public interest litigation'. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public Interest' is defined thus:

¶298

"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."

¶299

In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :

¶300

"Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."

¶301

In Janata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 52 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, has laid down as follows :

¶302

"The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL" means the legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary

¶303

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

¶304

interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."

¶305

In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows:

¶306

"Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold."

¶307

In para 96 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as follows:

¶308

"While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that Courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration."

¶309

In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:

¶310

"109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have as locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold".

¶311

It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievance go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while

¶312

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

¶313

genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters - government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system. 12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not

¶314

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

¶315

allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

¶316

The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined the "public interest litigation" in its report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows:

¶317

"Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others."

¶318

The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.

¶319

Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions.

¶320

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

¶321

Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharastra v. Prabhu [(1994 (2) SCC 481)] and Andra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s.GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Another [AIR 1994 SC 2151]. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K.Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT 265]. Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. 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 large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in 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 in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and Ors., v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors., (AIR 1999 SC 114), 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 Court should do well not only to

¶322

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

¶323

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 afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.

¶324

..........

¶325

In S.P.Gupta v. Union of India [1981 Supp. SCC 87], it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. He has also left the following note of caution: (SCC p.219, para 24)

¶326

"But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective."

¶327

In State of H.P. vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and Ors. (1985 (3) SCC 169), it has been said that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection.

¶328

Khalid, J. in his separate supplementing judgment in Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of W.B., (1987 (2) SCC 295, 331) said:

¶329

"Today public spirited litigants rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion. (SCC p. 331, para 46) * * * Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigations, the traditional

¶330

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

¶331

litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions. (SCC p.334, para 59)

¶332

¶333

I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self- imposed restraint on public interest litigants." (SCC p.335, para 61)

¶334

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench in ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India (1989 Supp (1) SCC 251), was in full agreement with the view expressed by Khalid, J. in Sachidanand Pandey's case (supra) and added that 'public interest litigation' is an instrument of the administration of justice to be used properly in proper cases. [See also separate judgment by Pathak, J. (as he then was) in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 (3) SCC 161).

¶335

Sarkaria, J. in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar (1976 (1) SCC 671) expressed his view that the application of the busybody should be rejected at the threshold in the following terms: (SCC p. 683, para 37)

¶336

"It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories : (i) 'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold."

¶337

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

¶338

Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (1981 (1) SCC 568) in stronger terms stated: (SCC p.589, para 48)

¶339

"48. If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him."

¶340

In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharash Samiti v. State of U.P., (1990 (4) SCC 449), Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.J. observed: (SCC p.452, para 8)

¶341

"While it is the duty of this Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of this Court to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the court."

¶342

In Union Carbid Corporation v. Union of India (1991 (4) SCC 584, 610), Ranganath Mishra, C.J. in his separate judgment while concurring with the conclusions of the majority judgment has said thus: (SCC p.610, para 21)

¶343

"I am prepared to assume, nay, concede, that public activists should also be permitted to espouse the cause of the poor citizens but there must be a limit set to such activity and nothing perhaps should be done which would affect the dignity of the Court and bring down the serviceability of the institution to the people at large. Those who are acquainted with jurisprudence and enjoy social privilege as men educated in law owe an obligation to the community of educating it properly and allowing the judicial process to continue unsoiled."

¶344

In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991 (1) SCC 598) it was observed as follows:

¶345

¶346

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

¶347

contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 must approach this Court for the vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is the duty of this Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for personal matters under the garb of the public interest litigation".

¶348

In the words of Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) "the courts must be careful in entertaining public interest litigations" or in the words of Sarkaria, J. "the applications of the busybodies should be rejected at the threshold itself" and as Krishna Iyer, J. has pointed out, "the doors of the courts should not be ajar for such vexatious litigants"."

¶349

(vi) In Dr.B.Singh vs. Union of India, reported in 2004 (3) SCC 363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶350

Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, courts must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind.

¶351

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

¶352

Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

¶353

(vii) In Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court reported in 2004 (13) SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶354

"At the very outset, we put it to the petitioner that a bare perusal of the petition shows that it is based entirely on newspaper reports and asked him whether before filing the petition he has taken care to verify the facts personally. His answer is in the negative. In the writ petition all the 21 High Courts have been included as respondents and Union of India has also been impleaded as the 22nd respondent. We asked the petitioner what has provoked him to implead all the High Courts as respondents and he states that it is his apprehension that similar incidents may occur in other High Courts though there is no factual foundation for such appreciation.

¶355

After affording the full opportunity of hearing, we are satisfied that what purports to have been filed as a public interest litigation is nothing more than a "publicity interest litigation". It is writ large that it has been filed without any effort at verifying the facts by the petitioner personally."

¶356

(viii) In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (1) SCC 590, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

¶357

"12..... The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or

¶358

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

¶359

other oblique considerations. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."

¶360

(ix) In R & M.Trust Vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group reported in 2005 (3) SCC 91, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 23 and 24, observed as follows:

¶361

"23. Next question is whether such Public Interest Litigation should at all be entertained & laches thereon. This sacrosanct jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation should be invoked very sparingly and in favour of vigilant litigant and not for the persons who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of publicity or for the purpose of serving their private ends.

¶362

Public Interest Litigation is no doubt a very useful handle for redressing the grievances of the people but unfortunately lately it has been abused by some interested persons and it has brought very bad name. Courts should be very very slow in entertaining petitions involving public interest in a very rare cases where public at large stand to suffer. This jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the down trodden and not for the purpose of serving private ends. It has now become common for unscrupulous people to serve their private ends and jeopardize the rights of innocent people so as to wreak vengeance for their personal ends. This has become very handy to the developers and in matters of public contracts. In order to serve their professional rivalry they utilize the service of the innocent people or organization in filing public interest litigation. The Courts are sometimes persuaded to issue certain directions without understanding implication and giving a handle in the hands of the authorities to misuse it. Therefore, the courts should not exercise this jurisdiction lightly but should exercise in a very

¶363

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

¶364

rare and few cases involving public interest of large number of people who cannot afford litigation and are made to suffer at the hands of the authorities."

¶365

(x) In Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2005 (5) SCC 136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of a petition styled as a public interest litigation, held as follows:

¶366

"5. The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this court in various cases. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as publicspirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.

¶367

.....

¶368

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 large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful

¶369

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

¶370

of the real intentions and objectives, High Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of socalled 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 Court 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. 8. ...... 9. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievance go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and substantial rights and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in

¶371

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

¶372

service matters - government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of tax cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions of luxury litigants who have nothing to loose but trying to gain for nothing and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants.

¶373

Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are

¶374

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

¶375

actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."

¶376

(xi) In Rohit Pandey v. Union of India reported in 2005 (13) SCC 702, Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

¶377

"1. This petition purporting to be in public interest has been filed by a member of the legal fraternity seeking directions against the respondents to hand over the investigation of the case pertaining to recovery of light machine gun, which is said to have been stolen from the army according to reports published in two newspapers, to the Central Bureau of Investigation for fair investigation to ensure that the real culprits who are behind such theft of army arms and ammunition endangering the integrity and sovereignty of the country may be brought to book and action may be taken against them in accordance with law. The only basis for the petitioner coming to this Court are two newspaper reports dated 25-1-2004, and the other dated 12-2-2004. This petition was immediately filed on 16-2-2004 after the aforesaid second newspaper report appeared. On enquiry from the learned counsel, we have learnt that the petitioner is a young advocate having been in practice for a year or two. The Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh, have been arrayed as party respondents. In the newspaper reports, there is no allegation either against the Union of India or against the Chief Minister.

¶378

We expect that when such a petition is filed in public interest and particularly by a member of the legal profession, it would be filed with all seriousness and after doing the necessary homework and enquiry. If the petitioner is so public-spirited at such a young age as is so professed, the least one would expect is that an enquiry would be made from the authorities concerned as to the nature of investigation which may be going on before filing a petition that the investigation be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Admittedly, no such measures were taken by the petitioner. There is nothing in the petition as to what, in fact, prompted the

¶379

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

¶380

petitioner to approach this Court within two-three days of the second publication dated 12-2-2004, in the newspaper Amar Ujala. Further, the State of Uttar Pradesh had filed its affidavit a year earlier i.e. on 7-10-2004, placing on record the steps taken against the accused persons, including the submission of the charge-sheet before the appropriate court. Despite one year having elapsed after the filing of the affidavit by the Special Secretary to the Home Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, nothing seems to have been done by the petitioner. The petitioner has not even controverted what is stated in the affidavit. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed such a misconceived petition with exemplary costs but considering that the petitioner is a young advocate, we feel that the ends of justice would be met and the necessary message conveyed if a token cost of rupees one thousand is imposed on the petitioner."

¶381

(xii) In DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ARAVALI GOLF CLUB AND ANOTHER 2008 (1) SCC 683, in paragraphs Nos.17, 19, 20 and 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-

¶382

“17. Before parting with this case, we would like to make some observations about the limits of the powers of the judiciary. We are compelled to make these observations because we are repeatedly coming across cases where judges are unjustifiably trying to perform executive or legislative functions. In our opinion this is clearly unconstitutional. In the name of judicial activism judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the State.

¶383

Under our Constitution, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary all have their own broad spheres of operation. Ordinarily, it is not proper for any of these three organs of the State to encroach upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset, and there will be a reaction.

¶384

Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the Government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behave like emperors. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution and each organ of the State – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary – must have respect for the other and must not encroach into each other's domains.

¶385

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

¶386

In Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India (vide AIR para 113 : SCC para 94), this Court observed that the modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The same view has been taken in a large number of other decisions also, but it is unfortunate that many Courts are not following these decisions and are trying to perform legislative or executive functions. In our opinion adjudication must be done within the system of historically validated restraints and conscious minimisation of the Judges' preferences. The Court must not embarrass the administrative authorities and must realise that administrative authorities have expertise in the filed of administration while the Court does not. In the words of Neely VJ (Scc p.681, para 82). “82.... I have very few illusions about my own limitations as a Judge ... I am not an accountant, electrical engineer, financier, banker, expect Judges intelligently to review a 5000 page record addressing the intricacies of a public utility operation.”

¶387

It is not the function of a Judge to act as a superboard, or with the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its judgment for that of the administrator.”

¶388

(xiii) In Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India reported in 2008 (5) SCC 511, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju (as he then was), held as follows: 40. “The justification given for judicial activism is that the executive and legislature have failed in performing their functions. Even if this allegations is true, does it justify the judiciary in taking over the functions of the legislature or executive? In our opinion it does not: firstly, because that would be in violation of the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State, and secondly, because the judiciary has neither the expertise nor the resources for this. If the legislature or executive are not functioning properly it is for the people to correct the defects by exercising their franchise properly in the next elections and voting for candidates who will fulfil their expectations, or by other lawful means e.g., peaceful demonstrations and agitations, but the remedy is surely not by the judiciary in taking over the functions of the other organs.”

¶389

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

¶390

"59. Unfortunately, the truth is that PILs are being entertained by many courts as a routine and the result is that the dockets of most of the superior courts are flooded with PILs, most of which are frivolous or for which the judiciary has no remedy. As stated in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 2005 SC 540, public interest litigation has nowadays largely become 'publicity interest litigation', 'private interest litigation', or 'politics interest litigation' or the latest trend 'paise income litigation'. Much of P.I.L. is really blackmail.

¶391

Thus, Public Interest Litigation which was initially created as a useful judicial tool to help the poor and weaker section of society who could not afford to come to courts, has, in course of time, largely developed into an uncontrollable Frankenstein and a nuisance which is threatening to choke the dockets of the superior courts obstructing the hearing of the genuine and regular cases which have been waiting to be taken up for years together."

¶392

In the same judgment, concurring with the view of his Brother Judge, Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K.Sema (as he then was), further added, as follows:

¶393

"69. Therefore, whether to entertain the petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation either represented by public-spirited person; or private interest litigation in the guise of public interest litigation; or publicity interest litigation; or political interest litigation is to be examined in the facts and circumstances recited in the petition itself. I am also of the view that if there is a buffer zone unoccupied by the legislature or executive which is detrimental to the public interest, judiciary must occupy the field to subserve public interest. Therefore, each case has to be examined on its own facts."

¶394

(xiv) Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 561, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:

¶395

In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the

¶396

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

¶397

shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court.

¶398

It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking a decision, right to “trial and error” as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the courts.

¶399

Normally, there is always a presumption that the governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the court by proper and adequate material. The court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or against public interest because there are large number of considerations, which necessarily weigh with the Government in taking an action.

¶400

(xv) In State of Uttranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402, the Hon'ble Supreme court has held as follows:

¶401

(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

¶402

(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly

¶403

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

¶404

formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.

¶405

(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.

¶406

(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.

¶407

(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.

¶408

(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.

¶409

(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.

¶410

(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.

¶411

(xvi) In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale reported in 2012 (2) SCC 425, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

¶412

"57. In the light of the above, we shall first consider whether the High Court committed an error by entertaining the writ petition filed by Subhash Rahangdale as public interest litigation. This Court has, time and again, laid down guiding principles for entertaining petitions filed in public interest. However, for the purpose of deciding the appellants' objection it is not necessary to

¶413

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

¶414

advert to the plethora of precedents on the subject because in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402, a two-Judge Bench discussed the development of law relating to public interest litigation and reiterated that before entertaining such petitions, the Court must feel satisfied that the petitioner has genuinely come forward to espouse public cause and his litigious venture is not guided by any ulterior motive or is not a publicity gimmick.

¶415

In paragraphs 96 to 104, the Bench discussed Phase-III of the public interest litigation in the context of transparency and probity in governance, referred to the judgments in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2003) 7 SCC 532, Rajiv Ranjan Singh "Lalan" (VIII) v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 613, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 110, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2008) 1 SCC 407 and observed: "These are some of the cases where the Supreme Court and the High Courts broadened the scope of public interest litigation and also entertained petitions to ensure that in governance of the State, there is transparency and no extraneous considerations are taken into consideration except the public interest. These cases regarding probity in governance or corruption in public life dealt with by the courts can be placed in the third phase of public interest litigation." 59. Reference also deserves to be made to the judgment of the three-Judge Bench in Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 in which a new dimension was given to the power of the Superior Courts to make investigation into the issues of public importance even though the petitioner may have moved the Court for vindication of a private interest. In that case the High Court had entertained a writ petition filed by Assistant Medical Officer of K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay questioning the assessment of answer sheets of the Post Graduate Medical

¶416

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

¶417

Examinations held by the Bombay University in October 1985. He alleged malpractices in the evaluation of the answer sheets of the daughter of the appellant who, at the relevant time, was Chief Minister of the State. The learned Single Judge held that altering and tampering of the grade sheets was done by Dr. Rawal at the behest of the Chief Minister. The Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge with some modification.

¶418

While rejecting the objection raised on behalf of the appellant that the writ petition filed by the respondent cannot be treated as a petition filed in public interest, this Court observed: "The allegations made in the petition disclose a lamentable state of affairs in one of the premier universities of India. The petitioner might have moved in his private interest but enquiry into the conduct of the examiners of the Bombay University in one of the highest medical degrees was a matter of public interest. Such state of affairs having been brought to the notice of the Court, it was the duty of the Court to the public that the truth and the validity of the allegations made be inquired into. It was in furtherance of public interest that an enquiry into the state of affairs of public institution becomes necessary and private litigation assumes the character of public interest litigation and such an enquiry cannot be avoided if it is necessary and essential for the administration of justice." (emphasis supplied)

¶419

(xvii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2013) 2 SCC 398, once again laid down the principles governing obligations of the litigants while approaching the Court and the consequences for abuse of process of law while filing the Public Interest Litigation.

¶420

(xviii) In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a public interest litigation, the Court must ensure that there is an element of genuine public interest is involved.

¶421

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

¶422

(xix) In State of Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti vs State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in 2014 (5) SCC 530, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶423

The scope of public interest litigation is very limited, particularly, in the matter of religious institutions. It is always better not to entertain this type of public interest litigations simply on the basis of affidavits of the parties. The public trusts and religious institutions are governed by particular legislation which provide for a proper mechanism for adjudication of disputes relating to the properties of the trust and the management thereof. It is not proper for the court to entertain such litigation and pass orders. It is also needless to mention that the forums cannot be misused by the rival groups in the guise of public interest litigation.

¶424

We feel that it is apt to quote the views expressed by this Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee [(2003) 7 SCC 546] wherein this Court observed: (SCC pp. 574-75 & 578, paras 60, 64 & 76) “60. It is possible to contend that the Hindus in general and the devotees visiting the temple in particular are interested in proper management of the temple at the hands of the statutory functionaries. That may be so but the Act is a self-contained code. Duties and functions are prescribed in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Forums have been created thereunder for ventilation of the grievances of the affected persons. Ordinarily, therefore, such forums should be moved at the first instance. The State should be asked to look into the grievances of the aggrieved devotees, both as parens patriae as also in discharge of its statutory duties. *** 64. The Court should be circumspect in entertaining such public interest litigation for another reason. There may be dispute amongst the devotees as to what practices should be followed by the temple authorities. There may be dispute as regards the rites and rituals to be performed in the temple or omission thereof. Any decision in favour of one sector of the people may hurt the sentiments of the other. The courts normally, thus, at the first instance would not enter into such disputed arena, particularly, when by reason thereof the fundamental right of a group of

¶425

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

¶426

devotees under Articles 25 and 26 may be infringed. Like any other wing of the State, the courts also while passing an order should ensure that the fundamental rights of a group of citizens under Articles 25 and 26 are not infringed. Such care and caution on the part of the High Court would be a welcome step.

¶427

¶428

When the administration of the temple is within its control and it exercises the said power in terms of a statute, the State, it is expected, normally would itself probe into the alleged irregularities. If the State through its machinery as provided for in one Act can arrive at the requisite finding of fact for the purpose of remedying the defects, it may not find it necessary to take recourse to the remedies provided for in another statute. It is trite that recourse to a provision to another statute may be resorted to when the State finds that its powers under the Act governing the field are inadequate. The High Courts and the Supreme Court would not ordinarily issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to carry out its statutory functions in a particular manner. Normally, the courts would ask the State to perform its statutory functions, if necessary within a time-frame and undoubtedly, as and when an order is passed by the State in exercise of its power under the statute, it will examine the correctness or legality thereof by way of judicial review.”

¶429

The concept of public interest litigation is a phenomenon which is evolved to bring justice to the reach of people who are handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy and other downtrodden people. Through the public interest litigation, the cause of several people who are not able to approach the court is espoused. In the guise of public interest litigation, we are coming across several cases where it is exploited for the benefit of certain individuals. The courts have to be very cautious and careful while entertaining public interest litigation. The judiciary should deal with the misuse of public interest litigation with iron hand. If the public interest litigation is permitted to be misused the very purpose for which it is conceived, namely, to come to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden will be defeated. The courts should discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself

¶430

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

¶431

and the person who misuses the forum should be made accountable for it. In the realm of public interest litigation, the courts while protecting the larger public interest involved, should at the same time have to look at the effective way in which the relief can be granted to the people whose rights are adversely affected or are at stake. When their interest can be protected and the controversy or the dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created under a particular statute, the parties should be relegated to the appropriate forum instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as public interest litigation.

¶432

(xx) In D.N.Jeevaraj vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and Others reported in 2016 2 SCC 653, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

¶433

However, we note that generally speaking, procedural technicalities ought to take a back seat in public interest litigation. This Court held in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. to this effect as follows:

¶434

" The writ petitions before us are not interpartes disputes and have been raised by way of public interest litigation and the controversy before the court is as to whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the area should be permitted or stopped. We may not be taken to have said that for public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same time it has to be remembered that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the court.”

¶435

A considerable amount has been said about public interest litigation in R & M Trust and it is not necessary for us to dwell any further on this except to say that in issues pertaining to good governance, the courts ought to be somewhat more liberal in entertaining public interest litigation. However, in matters that may not be of moment or a litigation essentially directed against one organization or individual (such as the present litigation which was directed only against Sadananda Gowda and later Jeevaraj was impleaded) ought not to be entertained or should be rarely entertained. Other remedies are also

¶436

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

¶437

available to public spirited litigants and they should be encouraged to avail of such remedies.

¶438

In such cases, that might not strictly fall in the category of public interest litigation and for which other remedies are available, insofar as the issuance of a writ of mandamus is concerned, this Court held in Union of India v. S.B. Vohra[6] that:

¶439

“Mandamus literally means a command. The essence of mandamus in England was that it was a royal command issued by the King’s Bench (now Queen’s Bench) directing performance of a public legal duty.

¶440

A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in himself. A writ of mandamus is issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform but has failed and/or neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates from either in discharge of a public duty or by operation of law. The writ of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature. The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted.”

¶441

A salutary principle or a well recognized rule that needs to be kept in mind before issuing a writ of mandamus was stated in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India[7] in the following words:

¶442

“The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 13, p. 106): “As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a

¶443

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

¶444

distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal.” In the cases before us there was no such demand or refusal. Thus, no ground whatsoever is shown here for the issue of any writ, order, or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

¶445

It is not necessary for us to definitively pronounce on the contention of learned counsel for Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj that the litigation initiated by Nagalaxmi Bai was not a public interest litigation or that no mandamus ought to have been issued by the High Court since no demand was made nor was there any refusal to meet that demand. But we do find it necessary to reaffirm the law should a litigant be asked to avail of remedies that are not within the purview of public interest litigation. Exercise of discretion

¶446

Learned counsel for Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj also addressed us on the issue that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in questioning the sanctioning of the building plans by the BBMP and further mandating the BDA to take action against Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj in terms of condition No. 4 of the lease-cum-sale agreement and the affidavit undertaking given by them, thereby effectively requiring the BDA to forfeit the lease.

¶447

This Court has repeatedly held that where discretion is required to be exercised by a statutory authority, it must be permitted to do so. It is not for the courts to take over the discretion available to a statutory authority and render a decision. In the present case, the High Court has virtually taken over the function of the BDA by requiring it to take action against Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj. Clause 10 of the lease-cum-sale agreement gives discretion to the BDA to take action against the lessee in the event of a default in payment of rent or committing breach of the conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement or the provisions of law.[8] This will, of course, require a notice being given to the alleged defaulter followed by a hearing and then a decision in the matter. By taking over the functions of the BDA in this regard, the High Court has given a complete go-bye to the procedural requirements and has mandated a particular course of action to be taken by the

¶448

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

¶449

BDA. It is quite possible that if the BDA is allowed to exercise its discretion it may not necessarily direct forfeiture of the lease but that was sought to be pre- empted by the direction given by the High Court which, in our opinion, acted beyond its jurisdiction in this regard.

¶450

In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat[9] this Court held that it is primarily the responsibility and duty of a statutory authority to take a decision and it should be enabled to exercise its discretion independently. If the authority does not exercise its mind independently, the decision taken by the statutory authority can be quashed and a direction given to take an independent decision. It was said: “Mandamus which is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is requested to be issued, inter alia, to compel performance of public duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. Statutory duties, if they are intended to be mandatory in character, are indicated by the use of the words “shall” or “must”. But this is not conclusive as “shall” and “must” have, sometimes, been interpreted as “may”. What is determinative of the nature of duty, whether it is obligatory, mandatory or directory, is the scheme of the statute in which the “duty” has been set out. Even if the “duty” is not set out clearly and specifically in the statute, it may be implied as correlative to a “right”.

¶451

In the performance of this duty, if the authority in whom the discretion is vested under the statute, does not act independently and passes an order under the instructions and orders of another authority, the Court would intervene in the matter, quash the order and issue a mandamus to that authority to exercise its own discretion.”

¶452

To this we may add that if a court is of the opinion that a statutory authority cannot take an independent or impartial decision due to some external or internal pressure, it must give its reasons for coming to that conclusion. The reasons given by the court for disabling the statutory authority from taking a decision can always be tested and if the reasons are found to be inadequate, the decision of the court to by-pass the statutory authority can always be set aside. If the reasons are cogent, then in an exceptional

¶453

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

¶454

case, the court may take a decision without leaving it to the statutory authority to do so. However, we must caution that if the court were to take over the decision taking power of the statutory authority it must only be in exceptional circumstances and not as a routine. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has not given any reason why it virtually took over the decision taking function of the authorities and for this reason alone the mandamus issued by the High Court deserves to be set aside, apart from the merits of the case which we have already adverted to.

¶455

(xxi) In Joint Secretary, Political Department, State of Meghalaya, Main Secretariat, Shillong vs. High Court of Meghalaya, reported in 2016 (11) SCC 245, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

¶456

There can be no doubt, the court can initiate suo motu proceedings in respect of certain issues which come within the domain of public interest. In Budhadev Karmaskar (1) v. State of W.B.[5] the Court, while dismissing an appeal, observed thus:-

¶457

“14. Although we have dismissed this appeal, we strongly feel that the Central and the State Governments through Social Welfare Boards should prepare schemes for rehabilitation all over the country for physically and sexually abused women commonly known as the ‘prostitutes’ as we are of the view that the prostitutes also have a right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India since they are also human beings and their problems also need to be addressed.

¶458

As already observed by us, a woman is compelled to indulge in prostitution not for pleasure but because of abject poverty. If such a woman is granted opportunity to avail some technical or vocational training, she would be able to earn her livelihood by such vocational training and skill instead of by selling her body.

¶459

Hence, we direct the Central and the State Governments to prepare schemes for giving technical/vocational training to sex workers and sexually abused women in all cities in India. The schemes should mention in detail who will give the technical/vocational training and in what manner they can be rehabilitated and settled by offering them employment. For instance, if a technical

¶460

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

¶461

training is for some craft like sewing garments, etc. then some arrangements should also be made for providing a market for such garments, otherwise they will remain unsold and unused, and consequently the woman will not be able to feed herself.”

¶462

Suo motu public interest litigation can be initiated to ameliorate the conditions of a class of persons whose constitutional or otherwise lawful rights are affected or not adequately looked into. The Court has adopted the said tool so that persons in disadvantaged situation because of certain reasons – social, economic or socioeconomic – are in a position to have access to the Court. The Court appoints Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and also expects the executive to respond keeping in view the laudable exercise.

¶463

In Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re[6], suo motu probe of incident was ordered by the Court against imposition of prohibitory order at night and hasty and forcible evacuation of public on the basis of media reports and CCTV camera footage. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab & others [7], the Court has held:-

¶464

“33. The High Court while entertaining the writ petition formed a prima facie opinion as regards the systematic commission of fraud. While dismissing the writ petition filed by the selected candidates, it initiated a suo motu public interest litigation. It was entitled to do so. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the High Court, as is well known, in a private interest litigation and in a public interest litigation is different. Whereas in the latter it is inquisitorial in nature, in the former it is adversarial. In a public interest litigation, the court need not strictly follow the ordinary procedure. It may not only appoint committees but also issue directions upon the State from time to time. (See Indian Bank v. Godhara Nagrik Coop. Credit Society Ltd.& another[8] and Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar.)”

¶465

Be it noted, the constitutional courts can entertain letter petitions and deal with them as writ petitions. But it will depend upon the nature of the issue sought to be advanced. There cannot be uncontrolled or unguided exercise of epistolary jurisdiction.

¶466

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

¶467

(xxii) In Re-Inhuman conditions in 1382 Prisons, reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1662, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs, 2 to 4, held as follows:

¶468

During the last several decades, public interest litigation has compelled this Court to consider issues relating to the environment, social justice, violation of human rights and disregard for Article 21 of the Constitution; either because of an absence of governance due to the failure of the State to faithfully and sincerely implement laws enacted by Parliament or due to mis-governance by the State, that is, the Central Government, the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations leading to rampant illegalities. The failure of the State to take remedial steps to fill in the gap when there is no operative law, except that enshrined in the Constitution, more particularly Article 21 has resulted in public interest litigation and at least two cases where a treaty obligation ought to be fulfilled.

¶469

In recent times, usually and regrettably, the State has chosen to challenge the idea of public interest litigation or denigrate it by chanting the mantra of ‘judicial activism’ or ‘separation of powers’. In most cases, these mantras are nothing but a fig leaf to cover the failure of the State to recognise the existence of the rule of law and the need for providing social justice to the people of the country, as stated in the Preamble to our Constitution. There must be a realization that public interest litigation has given a voice to millions of marginalized sections of society, women and children. Public interest litigation is one of the more important contributions of India to jurisprudence. In fact, the Indian experience has encouraged some other countries to introduce public interest litigation in their jurisprudence.

¶470

This is not to suggest that public interest litigation has not been misused or that occasionally this Court has not exceeded its jurisdiction, but it must be emphasised that wherever this Court might have exceeded its jurisdiction, it has always been in the interest of the people of the country prompted by administrative mis-governance or absence of governance. There are, therefore, occasional transgressions on both sides, but that cannot take

¶471

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

¶472

away from the significance of public interest litigation as a non-adversarial source of righting some wrongs and encouraging social change through accountability and, in cases, transparency.

¶473

(xxiii) In Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India reported in 2018 (6) SCC 72, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 96 to 98, held as follows:

¶474

"96. Public interest litigation has developed as a powerful tool to espouse the cause of the marginalised and oppressed. Indeed, that was the foundation on which public interest jurisdiction was judicially recognised in situations such as those in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 389]. Persons who were unable to seek access to the judicial process by reason of their poverty, ignorance or illiteracy are faced with a deprivation of fundamental human rights. Bonded labour and undertrials (among others) belong to that category. The hallmark of a public interest petition is that a citizen may approach the court to ventilate the grievance of a person or class of persons who are unable to pursue their rights. Public interest litigation has been entertained by relaxing the rules of standing. The essential aspect of the procedure is that the person who moves the court has no personal interest in the outcome of the proceedings apart from a general standing as a citizen before the court. This ensures the objectivity of those who pursue the grievance before the court. Environmental jurisprudence has developed around the rubric of public interest petitions. Environmental concerns affect the present generation and the future. Principles such as the polluter pays and the public trust doctrine have evolved during the adjudication of public interest petitions. Over time, public interest litigation has become a powerful instrument to preserve the rule of law and to ensure the accountability of and transparency within structures of governance. Public interest litigation is in that sense a valuable instrument and jurisdictional tool to promote structural due process.

¶475

Yet over time, it has been realised that this jurisdiction is capable of being and has been brazenly misutilised by persons with a personal

¶476

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

¶477

agenda. At one end of that spectrum are those cases where public interest petitions are motivated by a desire to seek publicity. At the other end of the spectrum are petitions which have been instituted at the behest of business or political rivals to settle scores behind the facade of a public interest litigation. The true face of the litigant behind the façade is seldom unravelled. These concerns are indeed reflected in the judgment of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal [State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 81 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 807] . Underlining these concerns, this Court held thus: (SCC p. 453, para 143)

¶478

“143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts.”

¶479

The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. This Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is

¶480

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

¶481

allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law. There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space."

¶482

In line with the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court, Madras has issued notification in SRO C-2/2010 dated 26.07.2010, which is extracted hereunder:-

¶483

"No. SRO C-2/2010.

¶484

By virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of India and of all other powers hereunto enabling, the High Court makes the following Rules to regulate Public Interest Litigations (PIL) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

¶485

Every Public Interest Litigation must be filed in accordance with the following rules:

¶486

Every PIL must indicate that the petitioner has no personal interest in the case. If he has any personal interest, he must disclose the same. In the event of the High Court finding the claim as frivolous or vexatious, the PIL shall be dismissed with exemplary cost.

¶487

If the PIL is filed on behalf of a class of persons, the details of the persons for whose benefit the PIL is filed, must be indicated. If it is a society or association of persons, the writ petitioner must enclose a resolution from such society or association of persons, authorising the petitioner to file the writ petition and if the body is duly registered with competent authority, a copy of the bye-laws of the said body authorising the petitioner to file the writ petition, shall be enclosed.

¶488

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

¶489

If the petitioner has filed any PIL earlier, the details of the petition, and the final order, if any, passed in that petition, the relief granted and costs, if any, awarded, shall be indicated. No Public Interest Litigation Petition will be entertained in respect of civil disputes between individuals or in service matters. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will pay the costs, if any, if it is found to be intended for personal gain or oblique motive.

¶490

The petitioner must disclose whether he has filed the petition out of his own funds or from other sources. If it is the latter, the particulars should be given.

¶491

The petitioner must state in the affidavit that to his knowledge, no PIL arising on the same issue, has been filed anywhere.

¶492

The affidavit filed by the petitioner must contain the averments that he has filed the writ petition based on his information and his personal knowledge. If he has filed the writ petition based on an information received from any other source, he must clearly indicate the source. If it is a newspaper report, the affidavit shall clearly state as to whether the deponent has verified the facts by personally visiting the place or talking to any responsible person or Reporter or Editor of the newspaper concerned.

¶493

If the petitioner has given any representation to any authority, a copy of the same shall be filed in the typed set of papers along with reply, if any, received from the authority. He shall file the proof of service of representation before the Court.

¶494

The above rules will not be applicable to the Public Interest Litigations taken on file by the High Court"

¶495

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions is Mr.Stalin Muthu. On the aspect of suppression of fact, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions.

¶496

(i) In Arunima Baruah v. Union of India reported in 2007 (6) SCC 120, the Supreme Court held as follows:

¶497

"12. .......It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question. In Moody v. Cox

¶498

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

¶499

[(1917) 2 Ch. 71: (1916-17) All ER Rep 548 (CA)], it was held: (All ER pp. 555 I-556 D)

¶500

“When one asks on what principle this is supposed to be based, one receives in answer the maxim that anyone coming to equity must come with clean hands. I think the expression “clean hands” is used more often in the textbooks than it is in the judgments, though it is occasionally used in the judgments, but I was very much surprised to hear that when a contract, obtained by the giving of a bribe, had been affirmed by the person who had a primary right to affirm it, not being an illegal contract, the courts of equity could be so scrupulous that they would refuse any relief not connected at all with the bribe. I was glad to find that it was not the case, because I think it is quite clear that the passage in Dering v. Earl of Winchelsea [(1787) 1 Cox Eq Cas 318: 2 Bos & P 270], which has been referred to, shows that equity will not apply the principle about clean hands unless the depravity, the dirt in question on the hand, has an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for."

¶501

In Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, pp. 874-76, the law is stated in the following terms:

¶502

“1303. He who seeks equity must do equity.—In granting relief peculiar to its own jurisdiction a court of equity acts upon the rule that he who seeks equity must do equity. By this it is not meant that the court can impose arbitrary conditions upon a plaintiff simply because he stands in that position on the record. The rule means that a man who comes to seek the aid of a court of equity to enforce a claim must be prepared to submit in such proceedings to any directions which the known principles of a court of equity may make it proper to give; he must do justice as to the matters in respect of which the assistance of equity is asked. In a court of law it is otherwise: when the plaintiff is found to be entitled to judgment, the law must take its course; no terms can be imposed.

¶503

¶504

He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.—A court of equity refuses relief to a plaintiff whose conduct in regard to the subjectmatter of the litigation has been improper. This was formerly expressed by the maxim ‘he who has committed

¶505

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

¶506

iniquity shall not have equity’, and relief was refused where a transaction was based on the plaintiff’s fraud or misrepresentation, or where the plaintiff sought to enforce a security improperly obtained, or where he claimed a remedy for a breach of trust which he had himself procured and whereby he had obtained money. Later it was said that the plaintiff in equity must come with perfect propriety of conduct, or with clean hands. In application of the principle a person will not be allowed to assert his title to property which he has dealt with so as to defeat his creditors or evade tax, for he may not maintain an action by setting up his own fraudulent design.

¶507

The maxim does not, however, mean that equity strikes at depravity in a general way; the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief sought, and the conduct complained of must have an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for; it must be depravity in a legal as well as in a moral sense. Thus, fraud on the part of a minor deprives him of his right to equitable relief notwithstanding his disability. Where the transaction is itself unlawful it is not necessary to have recourse to this principle. In equity, just as at law, no suit lies in general in respect of an illegal transaction, but this is on the ground of its illegality, not by reason of the plaintiff’s demerits.”

¶508

(v) In Udayami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of U.P., reported in 2008 (1) SCC 560, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

¶509

"15. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law."

¶510

12. On the aspect of abuse of process of law, let us consider few decisions:-

¶511

(i) In S.P.Sawhney v. Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in 1991 (2) SCC 318, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that multiple proceedings adopted by the petitioner therein, for claiming the same relief arising out of the same cause of action, amounts to abuse of process of Court.

¶512

(ii) In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in 1991 (1) SCC 598, it was observed as follows:

¶513

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

¶514

"Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions under Article 32, are entertained it would amount to abuse of process of the court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court. Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation. Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 must approach this Court for the vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is the duty of this Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for personal matters under the garb of the public interest litigation".

¶515

(iii) In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal reported in 2004 (3) SCC 349, held that the court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations.

¶516

13. Yet another aspect to be considered is that the very same contentions made in the instant writ petition are made in the other W.P.No.23231 of 2018 decided on 24/9/2018, between the same parties. Principles of res judicata can also be made applicable. In M.Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka reported in 2011 (3) SCC 408, the Apex Court reiterating the principles of res judicata and abuse of process of Court, as follows:

¶517

"12. The principles of res judicata are of universal application as they are based on two ageold principles, namely, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation and the other principle is nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eademn causa meaning thereby that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the court that it is for one and the same cause. This doctrine of res judicata is common to all civilised system of jurisprudence to the extent that a judgment after a proper trial by a court of competent jurisdiction

¶518

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

¶519

should be regarded as final and conclusive determination of the questions litigated and should for ever set the controversy at rest.

¶520

That principle of finality of litigation is based on high principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law inasmuch as there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious litigant will succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right. The doctrine of res judicata has been evolved to prevent such an anarchy. That is why it is perceived that the plea of res judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains the rule of law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks to promote honesty and a fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties.

¶521

Therefore, any proceeding which has been initiated in breach of the principle of res judicata is prima facie a proceeding which has been initiated in abuse of the process of court.

¶522

A Constitution Bench of this Court in Devilal Modi v. STO [AIR 1965 SC 1150], has explained this principle in very clear terms: (AIR p. 1152, para 7)

¶523

“7. … But the question as to whether a citizen should be allowed to challenge the validity of the same order by successive petitions under Article 226, cannot be answered merely in the light of the significance and importance of the citizens' fundamental rights. The general principle underlying the doctrine of res judicata is ultimately based on considerations of public policy. One important consideration of public policy is that the decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are modified or reversed by appellate authorities; and the other principle is that no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice over, because such a process would be contrary to considerations of fair play and justice (vide Daryao v. State of U.P. [AIR 1961 SC 1457]).”

¶524

This Court in AIMO case¹ explained in clear terms that principle behind the doctrine of res judicata is to prevent an abuse of the process of court. In explaining the said principle the Bench in

¶525

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

¶526

AIMO case¹ relied on the following formulation of Somervell, L.J. in Greenhalgh v. Mallard [(1947) 2 All.ER 255 (CA)] (All ER p. 257 H): (AIMO case [2006 (4)SCC683], SCC p. 700, para 39)

¶527

“39. … ‘I think that on the authorities to which I will refer it would be accurate to say that res judicata for this purpose is not confined to the issues which the court is actually asked to decide, but that it covers issues or facts which are so clearly part of the subject-matter of the litigation and so clearly could have been raised that it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of them.’

¶528

” (emphasis supplied in AIMO case)

¶529

The Bench in AIMO case also noted that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Greenhalgh was approved by this Court in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain [1977 (2) SCC 806], SCC at p. 809, para 4.

¶530

Following all these principles a Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra [1990 (2) SCC 715] laid down the following principle: (SCC p. 741, para 35)

¶531

“35. … an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had decided as incidental to or essentially connected with subjectmatter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence. Thus, the principle of constructive res judicata underlying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applied to writ case. We, accordingly hold that the writ case is fit to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata.”

¶532

Thus, the attempt to re-argue the case which has been finally decided by the court of last resort is a clear abuse of process of the court, regardless of the principles of res judicata, as has been held by this Court in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi [(1998) 3 SCC 573]. In SCC para 44 of the Report, this principle has been very lucidly discussed by this Court and the relevant portions whereof are extracted below: (SCC p. 592)

¶533

“44. One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the court is relitigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and

¶534

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

¶535

decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata.”

¶536

In coming to the aforementioned finding, this Court relied on The Supreme Court Practice, 1995 published by Sweet & Maxwell (p. 344). The relevant principles laid down in the aforesaid practice and which have been accepted by this Court are as follows: (K.K. Modi case [(1998) 3 SCC 573], SCC p. 592, para 43)

¶537

“43. … ‘This term connotes that the process of the court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The court will prevent improper use of its machinery and will in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation. … The categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances. And for this purpose considerations of public policy and the interests of justice may be very material.’ ”

¶538

On the premises aforesaid, it is clear that the attempt by the appellant to reagitate the same issues which were considered by this Court and were rejected expressly in the previous judgment in AIMO case, is a clear instance of an abuse of process of this Court apart from the fact that such issues are barred by principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata and principles analogous thereto."

¶539

14. Suppression, filing of the earlier writ petition with the same cause of action and principles of res judicata, considered by this Court, on the face of record, reflect abuse of process of law.

¶540

15. At this juncture, we also wish to state that in exercise of the powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, High Court, has framed rules for filing writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per Rule 3 of the Rules framed,

¶541

“If the petitioner has filed any PIL earlier, the details of the petition, and the final order, if any, passed in that petition, the relief granted and costs, if any, awarded, shall be indicated. No Public Interest Litigation Petition will be entertained in respect of civil disputes between individuals or in service matters. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will pay the costs, if any, if it is found to be intended for personal gain or oblique motive.”

¶542

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

¶543

16. In the light of the decisions, discussion, Rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, to regulate filing of writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in particular, action of the petitioner in willfully suppressing a material fact of non-disclosure of the orders passed in the earlier W.P.No.23231 of 2018, dated 24/9/2018. On the facts and circumstances, we hold that the instant writ petition is frivolous, abuse of process of law and deserves to be dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to be paid to the Tamil Nadu Juvenile Justice Fund, Ministry of Social Defence, Kellys, Chennai, within a period of fifteen days, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the District Collector, Chennai District, is directed to take proceeding against the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.

¶544

17. Though Mr.S.Stalin Muthu, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for reduction of the costs imposed, on the ground that the petitioner is earning only Rs.10,000/- p.m., this Court is not inclined to do so, for the reason that cost is imposed, not on the basis of the income earned, but for the conduct, which this Court has deprecated. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mvs. To 1. The Secretary to Government Tamil Development and Information (Advertisement) Department Secretariat Chennai 600009. 2. The Principal Secretary to Government Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009

¶545

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

¶546

Copy to:

¶547