Dismissed

Ayyaa v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Jul 2022WP/16818/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed to direct the State to establish food centers and restrooms at highway intervals. The Court held the petition lacked basis as it relied solely on unverified newspaper reports without proper research, violating principles for PILs.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition under Article 226 with no order as to costs.

Ayyaa Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.07.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA W.P.No.16818 of 2022 Ayyaa ...Petitioner Vs

¶5

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Building, Fort St. George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 009.

¶6

2.Department of Transport & Road Safety, Rep. by its Secretary, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Fort St. George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 009.

¶7

3.National Highways Authority of India (Chennai) Rep. by its Regional Officer, 1, Sri Balaji Towers, 54-28, Butt Road, Near Kathipara Junction, South Phase, SP Industrial Area, Parangi Malai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 016.

¶8

4.Department of Highways & Minor Ports, Rep. by its Director General, 76, Sardar Patel Road, Opp. to Raj Bhavan, Little Mount, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025. 5.Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Fort St. George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 009.

¶9

6.Directorate of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Rep. by its Director, Panagal Maligai, 4th and 5th Floor, Abdul Razzak Street, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. ...Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure adequate food security and availability of hygienic restrooms and affordable food centres/motels such as Amma Unavagams or Government aided Canteens at every 25 km stretch in the respective National and State Highways of Tamil Nadu based on the representation dated 3.11.2021 as expeditiously as possible.

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Lakshmikanth

¶12

For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5 assisted by Mr.Alagu Gowtham, Government Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶15

This writ petition has been filed to ensure adequate food security and availability of hygienic restrooms and affordable food centres/motels such as Amma Unavagam or Government Aided Canteens at every 25 kilometer stretch in the respective National and State Highways of Tamil Nadu.

¶16

To seek the direction aforesaid, a reference of the letter dated 18.01.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India has been given. The aforesaid letter is to provide toilet units at all the retail outlets along the National Highways under Swachha Bharat Mission.

¶17

To support the writ petition, a reference to certain news item flashed in the newspapers has been given, which basically talks about the service of food at higher rates, which is not the subject-matter of the letter dated 18.01.2018.

¶18

No Circular has been placed on record to show the mandate to open food centres/motels at every 25 kilometer stretch in the National and State Highways. The petition seems to have been filed based on the news item flashed in certain newspapers

¶19

without making a research that there is a mandate to open Amma Unavagam or Government Aided Canteens at every 25 kilometer stretch in the respective National and State Highways.

¶20

We find that public interest litigations are filed casually despite a direction of the Apex Court that it should be only after proper research, as laid down in the case of S.P. Anand vs. H.D.Deve Gowda, (1996) 6 SCC 734, wherein it has been held that a person filing a public interest litigation owes it not only to the public but also to the Court that he does not rush to the Court without undertaking any research to raise the issues in the public interest litigation. The Apex Court warned that “a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on halfbaked 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.”

¶21

The Apex Court in B.P. Singhal v. State of T.N. and Others, (2004) 13 SCC 673, while dealing with a public interest litigation, dismissed it on the ground that it lacked material particulars and the averments made were by and large based merely on newspaper reports and not personal knowledge. It was observed that the petitioner did not even state that he had taken any step to verify the correctness of the averments made.

¶22

In yet another decision in the case of Dr.B.Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 363, the Apex Court emphatically held that it was too much to attribute authenticity to any information merely because it was published in a newspaper or a journal or a magazine. In matters of Public Interest Litigation, Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that the Court has to be satisfied about (a) credentials of the petitioner; (b) prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information should not be vague and indefinite.

¶23

In the case on hand, the basis for filing the public interest litigation is the news item flashed in certain newspapers. The petitioner has not taken any effort to verify the authenticity of the said news or the correctness of the allegations levelled by him.

¶24

Insofar as restrooms are concerned, the petitioner has again referred to the news item which appeared in the newspapers without making a research on his own to bring certain examples where the restroom in the retail outlet are not in the size required and are not maintained in proper hygiene.

¶25

In view of the above, we find that the writ petition has been filed basically in reference to certain news item without

¶26

verification of the fact. We find no basis to issue direction of the nature sought by the petitioner.

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) // True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar bbr

¶30

To:

¶31

1.The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat Building, Fort St. George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 009.

¶32

2.The Secretary, Department of Transport & Road Safety, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Fort St. George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 009.

¶33

3.The Regional Officer, National Highways Authority of India (Chennai) 1, Sri Balaji Towers, 54-28, Butt Road, Near Kathipara Junction, South Phase, SP Industrial Area, Parangi Malai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 016.

¶34

4.The Director General, Department of Highways & Minor Ports, 76, Sardar Patel Road, Opp. to Raj Bhavan, Little Mount, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025.

¶35

5.The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department of Tamil Nadu, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Fort St. George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 009.

¶36

6.The Director, Directorate of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Panagal Maligai, 4th and 5th Floor, Abdul Razzak Street, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

¶37

+1cc to M/s.Swarnam J.Rajagopalan, Advocate Sr.No.42703

¶38

+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.No.42888

¶39

W.P.No.16818 of 2022

¶40

GPL(CO) RVM(12/07/2022)

Ayyaa v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayyaa v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotturpuram Youth Forum Vs Rajesh Lakhoni

N.Ramalingam Vs The Addl Secretary to

S.Harshanasabari Vs The Authorised officer

K R Ramaswamy Alias Traffic Ramasamy(Deceased) Vs Gnanadesigan

G.Selvarajan Vs M.S.Santhosh

K.Sarbudeen Vs The District Collector