No Element Of Public Interest In Writ Petition: Madras HC Imposes ₹50k Cost On Petitioner Having Disruptive Attitude During Court Proceedings
|The Madras High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner saying that there is no element of public interest in the writ petition and that the petitioner had disruptive attitude during court proceedings.
The petitioner namely Kannan Swaminathan had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeking a direction to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to initiate an investigation under the supervision of the High Court into the charges of corruption, criminal misconduct, etc. against the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice D. Krishnakumar and Justice P.B. Balaji remarked, “The petitioner, under the guise of this Public Interest Litigation, is espousing his grievance towards non-awarding of contract to his brother. In the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that there is no element of public interest in this writ petition.”
The Bench noted that the petitioner has not filed the writ petition in public interest, though it is styled as public interest litigation.
Advocate Thamizhanban appeared for the petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) R. Muniyapparaj and Advocate S. Mekhala appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner had stated that he has no personal interest in the litigation and the writ petition is not guided by self-gain nor for gain for any other person/institution/body. He was a Civil Engineer and had 20 years of national and international experience in the water supply and sewerage project. As per him, the Board had not conducted the tender process for drinking water supply across Tamil Nadu in a transparent manner as per the Central National Jal Jeevan Mission Guidelines. It was stated that Article 47, namely duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health, is violated since Indian Standard IS 12288 was not followed and that further, the testing of pipeline as to the soundness, leak tightness of pipes and fittings, tightness of joints, soundness of any construction work has not been done.
Contending that if the laying of pipelines results in leakage of water and mixing sewerage water, it would cause danger to the life of the people at large in Tamil Nadu, the petitioner made a complaint to the National Jal Jeevan Mission in February 2024 in respect of corruption involved. The National Jal Jeevan Mission forwarded the complaint to the Principal Secretary to Government of Municipal Administration and Water Supply of Tamil Nadu for necessary action. Thereafter, the complaint was forwarded to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption by the Central Vigilance Commission. As no action was taken, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
The High Court in the above context of the case observed, “Though the third respondent has filed preliminary objections on 20.06.2024, the petitioner neither filed any reply or affidavit refuting the averments made by the third respondent nor the counsel for the petitioner denied the averments made in the preliminary objection that the brother of the petitioner is a registered contractor and he was not awarded with any contract.”
The Court further noted that a preliminary objection was filed by the Board questioning the locus standi of the petitioner.
“Today, when the matter is taken up, the petitioner having engaged a counsel, was interfering with the Court proceedings by appearing in video conference and arguing parallely with his counsel, inspite of repeated warning given by us. In the light of the fact that there is no public element involved in the instant writ petition and the disruptive attitude of the petitioner during court proceedings, disregards the decorum of the Court, we are constrained to dismiss this writ petition with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority”, it directed.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and imposed a cost on the petitioner.
Cause Title- Kannan Swaminathan v. Union of India & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Thamizhanban
Respondents: APP R. Muniyapparaj, Government Advocate Kishore Kumar, and Advocate S. Mekhala.