@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K.N. Basha and N. Paul Vasanthakumar, JJ.@mdashW.P. No. 20805 of 2011 is filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a political party represented by R.S. Bharathi, Secretary, Legal Wing, praying to quash the Government Order issued in G.O. Ms. No. 423 Home (Pol.XI) Department, dated 28.7.2011, with further prayer to forbear the Officers of the third Respondent herein from registering any First Information Report based on the above impugned Government Order.
2. In W.P. No. 18872 of 2011, the Petitioner, who is a Member of Parliament of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and also a practising Advocate of this Court prays to quash G.O. Ms. No. 423 Home (Pol.XI) Department, dated 28.7.2011.
3. W.P. No. 21126 of 2011 is filed by one of the practising Advocate of this Court, challenging the very same Government Order.
4. These writ petitions having been filed by way Public Interest Litigation, the Respondents herein, appearing through the learned Advocate General, raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petitions.
5. Since the maintainability issue is raised as preliminary issue, at the first instance we are called upon to decide as to whether these writ petitions are maintainable as Public Interest Litigation.
6. In W.P. No. 20805 of 2011, the grievances expressed are that Criminal proceedings have been initiated against important DMK functionaries of all Districts including former Ministers by forming 39 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in Tamil Nadu with 410 Police Personnel to deal with the land grabbing cases in the State with the financial commitment of Rs. 27, 71, 11, 658/-. The said Land Grabbing Special Cells are formed through G.O(Ms) No. 423 Home (POL-XI) Department, dated 28.7.2011. It is stated in the affidavit that 39 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells, separate staff pattern, vehicles, separate office, computers etc. are also sanctioned and tax payers'' money is used for targeting the persons belonging to opposition party. The said separate Special Cell is constituted to ruin the political career of DMK men in the eye of public, and police terrorism is let loose in a tyrannical manner and based on First Information Reports registered. The Government Order was issued only on political reasons. A number of political persons were arrested and confined in various prisons. The said action of the Government is politically motivated, affecting large section of the society, particularly DMK Party members and functionaries.
7. The Government Order is issued only to receive complaints of land grabbing alleged to have been committed in DMK Party regime, i.e., during the year 2006-2011 and the same is discriminatory and arbitrary. The natural course of investigation is sought to be changed by treating such complaints relating to a particular period and DMK men are singled out and are arbitrarily treated. There is no rationality in classifying the offences relating to a particular period and against particular party members. The guidelines for arresting the accused persons are not followed. Complaints are received and First Information Reports are automatically registered and indiscriminate arrest is being made. Personal vendetta by hunting towards opposition party is impermissible and hundreds of political leaders are implicated in false cases merely because the DMK party was defeated in the last Assembly Election. There is political witch-hunting by foisting false cases, galoring with no respect to good principles of healthy administration and healthy political atmosphere in the State. The police force is misused for tarnishing the image of the DMK Party. Five District Secretaries of DMK party are arrested and detained and one District Secretary is detained under the Goondas Act. Alleging all these averments, DMK party has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation.
8. W.P. No. 18872 of 2011 is filed by a sitting Member of Parliament belonging to DMK Party, who is also a practising Advocate of this Court having 23 years of standing. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is alleged that the Government Order was issued on political consideration and the said order is alleged to be in violation of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; Article 300A of the Constitution of India; Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and also in violation of Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Section 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963; and Section 25 of the Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 etc.
9. W.P. No. 21126 of 2011 is filed by another practising Advocate of this Court, who served as Standing Counsel for the Chennai Corporation; Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for Central Administrative Tribunal; Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government before this Court; and also served as Special Public Prosecutor for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act at Chennai. He is also an active member of Lions Club, participating in the social development activities. In the affidavit filed, the Petitioner has raised the contention that three districts are left out from the purview of the impugned Government Order, which is discriminatory. The Government Order is contrary to Section 562 of the Police Standing Order. There is no guideline issued to the police officials to deal with the complaints relating to land grabbing cases, viz., unguided power is vested with the police officials and the State Government has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned Government Order under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, as the field is occupied by the statutory enactments. The action of the Government amounts to usurping the powers of the Civil Courts and Rent Control Tribunals and therefore, it is contrary to Article 50 of the Constitution of India. The police are not complying with the mandatory provisions contained under Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, etc., of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the said writ petition is filed by way of Public Interest Litigation as large number of persons are affected.
10. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondents raised the issue of maintainability of these writ petitions while taking notice and also filed separate counter affidavits in respect of maintainability alone.
11. W.P. No. 20805 of 2011 filed by the Legal Wing of DMK party is opposed on the ground that the writ petition filed is nothing but a political interest litigation in order to ventilate the personal and political grievance by making averments against the present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and not in public interest. The Petitioner being not authorised by the DMK party, cannot file the writ petition, representing the DMK party. No authorisation, if any issued by the party is filed, which is required under the rules framed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to regulate filing of Public Interest Litigations, which contemplates authorisation shall be filed, if it is filed by a Society or association of persons, if the body is duly registered by the competent authority. Petitioner political party having lost in the State Assembly elections has not disclosed anything about the details of the persons for whose benefit the PIL is filed. The Petitioner is focusing only the party interest, which is not entertainable as per Rule 2 of the High Court Rules. PIL is not maintainable for personal gain, private profit, political motive or for any oblique consideration, which is a settled proposition of law.
12. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Constitution of Anti Land Grabbing Cells is in the interest of the public and the Petitioner is trying to disrupt the process for reasons of political rivalry. The General Secretary of the same political party to which Petitioner belongs filed W.P. No. 16993 of 2011 challenging the Commission of Inquiry, which was proposed to be constituted and the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability stating that there was no public interest in that writ petition. It is further stated that if any individual is having grievance on the ground of filing of false complaint, he shall approach the Court by filing appropriate proceeding under Code of Criminal Procedure instead of approaching this Court by way of public interest. The PIL can be entertained at the instance of bona fide litigants and it cannot be permitted to be used by unscrupulous litigants to disguise personal or individual grievances. The present petition being filed due to political motivation to target and settle scores with certain specific individuals is an abuse of process of the Court. About 14, 275 complaints were received till filing of the counter affidavit and after scrutiny of the documents, 629 cases alone were registered and 614 persons concerned in the above said cases were arrested.
13. In W.P. No. 18872 of 2011 separate counter affidavit is filed on the issue of maintainability alone. It is stated therein that the Petitioner being an active member of a DMK political party, is not focusing genuine public interest. The Petitioner is not only a member of the DMK party, but also a Member of Parliament and he has filed the writ petition only for the benefit of the members of his party.
14. In W.P. No. 21126 of 2011 also the Respondents have filed counter affidavit on the issue of maintainability alone and reserved their right to file detailed counter affidavit on merits at a later stage, if required. In the said counter affidavit it is stated that the Petitioner as an Advocate has filed the writ petition to further personal interest and not in furtherance of public interest. The locus standi of the Petitioner is a matter of grave doubt and details of the persons for whose benefit the PIL is filed has not been disclosed. The Petitioner, despite being a lawyer, has not made note of the fact that no guideline or instruction could be issued by the Government to the Police as it would amount to interference with the functioning of the police. The Petitioner is attempting to stall the process of investigation, which would be detrimental to the welfare of the public.
15. Mr. N. Jothi, learned Counsel and Mr. R. Viduthalai, Mr. P. Wilson, learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioner in W.P. Nos. 20805, 18872 and 21126 of 2011 respectively made their submissions regarding maintainability of these writ petitions.
16. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General made his submissions regarding non-maintainability of these writ petitions as pubic interest litigations.
17. Since these writ petitions are filed by three different persons in three different capacities and different issues are raised in each writ petition, decision can be arrived at on the basis of the pleadings and submissions.
18. In the writ petition filed by the Legal Wing of DMK party, viz., W.P. No. 20805 of 2011, the deponent viz., the Secretary, Legal Wing has not been authorised to file the writ petition, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 2 of the Rules framed by this Court to regulate the filing of Public Interest Litigation, which was notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee published on 11.8.2010. In Rule 1 it is further stated that PIL must indicate that the Petitioner has no personal interest in the case.
19. On going through the pleadings made by the Petitioner the grievance focused is that the writ petition is filed against the Government, which belong to another political party and for political reasons i.e, to wreck vengeance against opponents of the ruling party, the impugned Government Order was issued and regime targeting alone is followed by the Government as the Government is restricting the investigation of land grabbing cases for the period from 2006 to 2011 i.e., during that period the Petitioner party was in power in the State of Tamil Nadu. In answer to the said contentions raised in the affidavit as well as in answer to the submissions of Mr. N. Jothi, learned Counsel for Petitioner in W.P. No. 20805 of 2011, the learned Advocate General submitted that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the Government as during the previous regime when the DMK party was in power, several complaints lodged by innocent people were not investigated due to political interference of the then ruling partymen and the same was noticed by the AIADMK party, which was the opposition party then and after coming into power, a decision was taken to constitute a Special Cell for investigation of land grabbing cases to uphold the rule of law to serve the general public, which is guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 300A. The learned Advocate General during the course of the arguments on 22.9.2011 submitted that the Respondents are investigating all complaints of land grabbing cases, irrespective of the period and irrespective of political affiliation against whom complaints are made. The learned Advocate General also stoutly denied the contention that regime targetting is resorted through the impugned order. The learned Advocate General further submitted that out of about 15, 900 complaints so far received, only 673 complaints were registered, of which 10% of persons only belong to DMK party and complaints are registered if prima facie case is made out, irrespective of the political affiliation. The Advocate General also submitted that the Special Cell and Special Courts are constituted for speedy investigation and disposal of land grabbing cases. He also submitted that land grabbing cells were in existence in Chennai even before passing the impugned order and in other areas, police were registering land grabbing cases. The individuals affected if any are having several remedies by approaching the competent courts and therefore the writ petition filed by the Petitioner, which is a political party in the guise of PIL is to be dismissed at the threshold.
20. On the basis of the said submissions learned Advocate General cited several judgments of the Supreme Court, particularly
21. In W.P. No. 16993 of 2011 dated 23.8.2011 a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the General Secretary of the DMK party questioning the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 185 Public Department, dated 26.5.2011 appointing One-Man Commission of Inquiry regarding construction of new Secretariat Complex. Similar objection was raised in the said writ petition regarding maintainability and the said writ petition was dismissed.
22. In the decision reported in
20.... These submissions were raised by the Appellants before the High Court and the High Court has elaborately dealt with the same and after giving good reasons rejected all of them. The High Court has referred to the date which was brought on record to show that a large number of cases were pending before the Special Courts in the city of Chennai. Moreover, the Courts of Special Judges were also acting as Additional Sessions Courts and were thus overburdened with the ordinary criminal cases also. We have also referred to some material placed in this behalf by the State before the High Court in the earlier part of our judgment. In view of the material which has been brought on record it cannot be seriously disputed that the cases which are specified in the notification being of a complex nature will not be over within a period of about 10 years if they are left to be tried by the Area Special Judges. Moreover as pointed out by this Court in Special Courts Bill, 1978, Re5 #speedy trial of offences of a public nature committed by persons who have held high public or political offices in the country and Ors. connected with the commission of such offences is the heart of the matter#. Thus the speedier trial of corruption cases against public servants/officers holding high government officials (sic offices) being a relevant consideration it cannot be said that by appointing separate Special Judges for speedier trial of those cases the Government has either singled out cases against its political opponents or that the power has been exercised by the Government for political targeting. The Appellants have not brought on record any material to show that the cases of similarly situated politicians or public servants/officials were also pending and they have been left untouched for being tried by the Area Special Judges.
21. As we agree with the reasons given by the High Court for rejecting all the submissions made in this behalf by the learned Counsel for the Appellants we do not think it necessary to deal with them any further. We may only state that no factual averments were made by the Appellants in the writ petitions to make out a valid case of malice in fact. We may also state that the material on record justified the exercise of power by the Government and, therefore, the impugned notification cannot be said to be either discriminatory or violative of Article 14.
The learned Advocate General also placed heavy reliance on the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in
23. Mr. N. Jothi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 20805/2011 vehemently contended that the impugned Government Order was passed for constituting Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells only for receiving complaints relating to the period between 2006 and 2011 and the same would amount to regime targeting and as such, the impugned Government Order is nothing but the outcome of the arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power. It is contended that complaints have been registered only in respect of the alleged transactions said to have taken place between 2006 and 2011 due to political motivation, irrespective of any case of criminal nature is made out. The learned Counsel by placing reliance on the following decisions,
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
contended that when the writ Petitioner has come forward with the allegations of mala fides or of improper motives on the part of persons in authority, the said persons in authority should place on record their version or denial and cannot raise preliminary objection, questioning the maintainability of the writ petition.
24. It is pertinent to note that the statistics given in the counter affidavit filed by the second Respondent indicates that out of 14, 275 complaints received, only 629 cases were registered. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate General during the course of his arguments that as on date about 15, 900 complaints were received and only 673 cases were registered and 69 persons belonging to DMK party are prosecuted and as such, the cases registered against other than DMK party people comes to 602 cases out of the total 673 cases registered. The learned Advocate General has also made a categorical statement before this Court stating that cases registered so far does not confine only to the period between 2006 and 2011 (DMK party regime).
25. The pleadings of the Petitioner raised in the affidavit are mainly revolving around the interest of the Petitioner, namely, a political party and we are unable to see any element of public interest. In view of the reasons stated earlier, we are of the considered view that there is no regime targeting or political witch-hunting as alleged by the Petitioner and as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The writ petition having been filed mainly on the ground of mala fide exercise of power and regime targeting and the same having been found against the Petitioner and no public interest is arising for consideration in the said writ petition, we are of the view that W.P. No. 20805/2011 is not maintainable and the same is dismissed by applying the judgments above cited and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for entertaining writ petitions as PIL.
26. Insofar as W.P. No. 18872 of 2011 is concerned, even though the said writ petition is filed by a Member of Parliament belonging to DMK party, he is basically an advocate and raised legal contentions, which require detailed counter affidavit on merits. Similarly W.P. No. 21126 of 2011 filed by the Petitioner, who is also an Advocate having no political affiliation, also contain legal issues for adjudication. Had the Respondents filed counter affidavit on merits also, we could have decided those issues also simultaneously and disposed of the said writ petitions as well. The Petitioners in these writ petitions being advocate, their locus standi cannot be doubted. In the absence of counter affidavit filed regarding legal issues raised, we are of the view that the said writ petitions are to be admitted. We make it clear that by admitting those writ petitions nobody shall have an impression that we are accepting the contentions raised in those writ petitions, at this stage. The legal contentions raised in the writ petitions can be decided on merits only after filing counter affidavit by the Respondents and after hearing respective counsels.
27. In the result, W.P. No. 20805 of 2011 is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
28. W.P. Nos. 18872 and 21126 of 2011 are admitted. The Respondents are directed to file counter affidavit before 20.10.2011. Post the writ petitions for final disposal on 21.10.2011.
