AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Manikumar, J.—1. Vice President of Madurai District Urban Congress Committee, claiming himself to be a pro bono litigant, espousing the cause of poor and downtrodden, has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the District Collector, Madurai District, and the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, respondents 4 and 5 respectively, to forward the recommended list of 12 homeless families and to direct the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, and Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Madurai, respondents 2 and 3 respectively, to allot them houses, in any of the resettlement beneficiaries schemes, under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) Scheme, anywhere in Madurai District, based on the representations of the petitioner, dated 02.01.2011 and 26.12.2015, respectively, within a time frame.
Supporting the prayer sought for, the petitioner has contended that pursuant to Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) Scheme, formulated by the Central Government of India, constructions have been made, to accommodate slum dwellers in cities like, Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai, under the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Act, 1971.
The petitioner has further contended that the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai, while evicting the slum dwellers of Vaigai Vadakarai, Ellis Nagar, Bodiline, Pookkara Thoppu, Nagammal Madam, FF road, Melamadai, SMP Colony, Ansari Nagar, Seeni Naickar Thoppu, Kulamangalam Road, SMP Lane, Anupanadi Kanmaikarai, Rajakoor etc., has given assurance that encroached slum dwellers would be accommodated, in the newly constructed houses, under the re-settlement beneficiary schemes at Rajakoor, Avaniapuram-Aruppukottai Road and Ellis Nagar.
According to the petitioner, the District Collector, Madurai District, and the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, respondents 4 and 5 respectively, are the Nodal Agencies, for implementation of the re-settlement beneficiary schemes at Rajakoor, Avaniapuram-Aruppukottai Road and Ellis Nagar.
It is the further contention of the petitioner that though poor and downtrodden people, residing at Vaigai Vadakarai, were evicted, but they were not provided with houses, under JNNURM scheme at Rajakoor, Avaniapuram-Aruppukottai Road and Ellis Nagar. They have approached him for assistance. After compilation of their individual representations, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 02.01.2011, to the respondents. Further representation, dated 18.02.2011, was also sent. It is the contention of the petitioner that responding to the above, the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Madurai, the 3rd respondent herein, sent a reply in Na.Ka. No. AA/432/2011, dated 08.03.2011, stating that the petitioner''s representation would be forwarded to the District Collector, Madurai District.
As the abovesaid representations were not responded, the petitioner made another representation, dated 18.06.2012 for which, the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Madurai, vide reply in Na.Ka. No. 2178/CDO/2011, dated 18.06.2012, informed the petitioner that his representation has been forwarded to the District Collector, Madurai District.
It is the further case of the petitioner that another representation was sent on 13.06.2013, for which, the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka. No. 91/1501/2013, dated 11.07.2013, has given an evasive reply.
Apart from the above, the petitioner has referred to the earlier orders of this Court. Thus, in the abovesaid circumstances, he has sought for a Mandamus, as stated supra.
When the matter came up on 08.02.2016, Mr. R. Murali, learned counsel took notice for the 5th respondent/Commissioner, Madurai Corporation. Mr. P. Mahendran, learned counsel took notice for the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, and Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Madurai, respondents 2 and 3 respectively.
On this day, Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Madurai, 3rd respondent herein, has filed a counter affidavit, on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. Based on the averments therein, Mr. P. Mahendran, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, submitted that the petitioner has claimed to have sent representations, during the years 2011, 2012, 2014 respectively, the last of which, is dated 26.12.2015, seeking allotment of tenements, in respect of the following persons:--
"1) Seethai
2) Mariappan
3) Najeema
4) Manikandan
5) Deivanai
6) Gnaneswaran
7) Mangalam
8) Murugesan
9) Kumaravel
10) Arunpandi
11) Sudarsanam
12) Ramasubramanian"
He further submitted that allotment of tenements to the beneficiaries, would be made, based on the details furnished by the revenue officials, particularly, the District Collector, as well as the Corporation officials under JNNURM Scheme, who would identify the beneficiaries, more fully from slum areas, based on their occupancy records, such as, ration card, voter I.D cards, family details, and a list of such beneficiaries would be sent by the respective revenue/corporation authorities, to the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Madurai, who in turn, after scrutiny, would forward the same, to Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, for approval and thereafter, further process would be initiated for allotment of tenements. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, further submitted that if any person is evicted, from the area of unauthorised occupation, such person would be issued, with an identity card, as per the scheme and procedure followed.
It is further submitted that as per the said scheme, there is no condition that allotment of tenements, constructed by the Board would be given free of cost, either to downtrodden, weaker sections or any other persons, but the beneficiaries are required to pay the beneficiary cost/respective share, and the major portion of the cost of tenements, would be borne by the Government, and a portion of the cost alone, has to be borne by the allottees.
It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 that, after perusal of the copies of representations enclosed in the typed set of papers, filed along with the present writ petition, and the representation of the petitioner dated 18.06.2012, the 3rd respondent has found that there is a change made by the petitioner, as regards the list of persons, to whom the tenements were sought for. The representations of the petitioner, dated 02.01.2011 and 26.12.2015 respectively, filed in the typed set of papers, refer to some other 12 persons. According to him, the representation submitted by the petitioner, to the District Collector, Madurai District, for allotment of tenements, on the Public Grievance Day, on 18.06.2012, in proceedings No. MV/12/1187, refers to the following persons:--
"1) S. Balasubramanian
2) Mohammed Bivi
3) Shamsundar
4) Pandiammal
5) Natarajan
6) Mumtaz Bivi
7) Kaja Bivi
8) Shanmugam
9) Mohammed Erwadi
10) Bakrudeen
11) Sabin Banu
12) Balasubramanian s/o Somasundaram
13) S. Selvarani"
Thus, the learned counsel for the Slum Clearance Board, submitted that the list of persons, mentioned by the petitioner, for allotment of tenements, in his representation, submitted before the District Collector, Madurai District, on the Public Grievance day, on 18.06.2012 and representations, dated 02.01.2011 and 26.12.2015, is entirely different and contradictory. He submitted that the request made by the petitioner on 18.06.2012 has been rejected on 26.02.2016, by the revenue authorities. According to the 3rd respondent, even the particulars of the persons, claiming tenements, as given by the petitioner, are not genuine and bona fide.
Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, further submitted that so far as allotment of tenements at Rajakoor area, is concerned, the allotment is covered under JNNURM Scheme, and the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation, is the Nodal Agency, competent to make allotments. As regards Avaniapuram-Aruppukottai Road and Ellis Nagar, is concerned, the District Collector, Madurai District, is the Nodal Agency. He also submitted that as per the said scheme, all the eligible beneficiaries, have been allotted tenements and even as per the orders made in W.P(MD) No. 4681 of 2015, the beneficiaries left over, have been accommodated as per the Scheme, and allotments under the abovesaid scheme, have been completed, and that there are no tenements for allotment to any individual.
Added further, he submitted that none of the representations, enclosed in the typed set of papers, is supported by proper acknowledgment. He therefore, submitted that the averments made in the supporting affidavit, though made by the petitioner, claiming himself to be a public interest litigant, are not substantiated.
Supporting the contention of the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Mr. R. Murali, learned counsel for the 5th respondent/Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai, submitted that no representation has been received, from any of the persons, mentioned in the supporting affidavit. His submission is placed on record.
Mr. R. Deva Rishi, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced arguments. According to him, the petitioner only compiled all the representations, sent by the alleged encroachers, who had been removed and he only consolidated by sending representations dated 02.01.2011 and 26.12.2015 respectively.
During the course of hearing, Mr. R. Deva Rishi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that tenements are being sold. We are not inclined to accept the bald allegations, and hence, we reject the oral submission. Finding force on the contention of the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, that there is a glaring difference, between the list of names, mentioned in the representation of the petitioner, dated 18.06.2012, submitted before the District Collector, Madurai District, on the Public Grievance Day, and the list of names mentioned in the copies of representations, filed in the typed set of papers, We posed a specific question, to Mr. R. Deva Rishi, learned counsel for the petitioner, to clarify as to how, there could be such a difference, and still the writ petitioner would contend that he is espousing the cause of the persons mentioned in the representations enclosed in the typed-set of papers.
At this juncture, it is also pertinent to record that though at paragraph 7 of the supporting affidavit, the writ petitioner has referred to the representation dated 18.06.2012, conveniently, he has not enclosed the same, in the typed set of papers. Probably, if the petitioner had enclosed the representation dated 18.06.2012, the difference in the list of names, would be per se apparent, on the face of the record.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, none of the representations enclosed in the typeset of papers has any acknowledgment. At this juncture, we would like to extract the names of persons, alleged to have been removed from Vaigai Vadakarai, as stated in the representations enclosed in the typeset of papers, and the representation, dated 18.06.2012 made by the writ petitioner.
From the representation dated 18.06.2012, it is manifestly clear that in 2012, the petitioner has attempted to espouse the cause of 12 persons, mentioned in the said representation and quite contrary to the same, he has made an attempt, as if he is espousing the cause of others, stated to have approached him, to ventilate their grievances. Though, during the course of hearing of the present writ petition, this Court had repeatedly pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the contradictions in other representations, veracity of the submissions of the petitioner, cannot be accepted, still the learned counsel for the petitioner was harping on the only submission, that the petitioner has only compiled the representations of those persons, whose names are mentioned in the documents, enclosed in the typeset of papers, and that the prayer of the petitioner, was only to consider his representations dated 02.01.2011 and 26.12.2015, respectively. Throughout the affidavit, it is the contention of the petitioner that his representations including the one dated 18.06.2012 has not been acted upon, as expected, but, only a reply was given, stating that the representation dated 18.06.2012 was forwarded to the District Collector, Madurai District.
Though the petitioner has contended that the representation of the petitioner dated 18.06.2012 has not been acted upon, it is not correct. The representation of the petitioner dated 18.06.2012 has been acted upon. In this regard, it is the version of the petitioner that as per the letter of the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Madurai, Na.Ka. No. 2178/CDO/2011, dated 18.06.2012, sent to the writ petitioner, it is stated as hereunder:--
We have already extracted the names of persons mentioned in the representations enclosed in the typeset of papers and also the representation dated 18.06.2012, submitted by the petitioner, to the District Collector, Madurai District, on the Public Grievance Day.
Letter of the writ petitioner, dated 17.03.2014, enclosed in the typeset of papers, is extracted hereunder:--
Reading of the same also makes it clear that grievance of the writ petitioner is that 12 persons, have not been provided with alternative accommodation. He has averred that he had made representations dated 02.01.2011 and 26.12.2015 respectively. In the representation dated 18.06.2012, he has given different names and conveniently, not enclosed the representation dated 18.06.2012 in the typeset of papers. There is a suppression of facts. As regards suppression and equity, reference can be made to the following decisions:--
''(i) In Arunima Baruah v. Union of India reported in , 2007 (6) SCC 120, the Supreme Court at Paragraphs 11, 12 and 14, has held as follows:
"11. The court''s jurisdiction to determine the lis between the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human rights concept of access to justice. The same, however, would not mean that the court will have no jurisdiction to deny equitable relief when the complainant does not approach the court with a pair of clean hands; but to what extent such relief should be denied is the question.
It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. 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 Halsbury''s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, pp. 874-76, the law is stated in the following terms:
"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.
***
1305. 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 subject-matter of the litigation has been improper. This was formerly expressed by the maxim ''he who has committed 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.
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."
(See also Snell''s Equity, 13th Edn., pp. 30-32 and Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf [, 2006 (7) SCC 756]"
(ii) In Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of India reported in , 2007 (8) SCC 449, at Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35, it has been held as follows:
It is thus clear that though the appellant- Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.
The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136], in the following words: "(I)t has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should made a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help the Court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement".
(emphasis supplied)
It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."
(iii) In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in , 2008 (1) SCC 560, at Paragraphs 16 and 17, the Apex Court, has held as follows:
"16. 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. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries[, (1980) 3 SCC 311], this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt.
For the reasons aforementioned, there is not merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsel''s fee quantified at Rs. 50,000."
A person claiming to be a public interest litigant should furnish all the particulars. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India, reported in , (2011) 3 SCC 287, wherein it has been held as follows:
"38. Another aspect, which has still not been clarified by the petitioner, is how the present petition came to be filed in face of the judgment of this Court in Consumer Education and Research Centre [, (1995) 3 SCC 42] and, in fact, what was the need to file it. It cannot be ignored that valuable time of this Court is consumed in dealing with such public interest litigations which are filed without proper study and data.......
Every litigant, who approaches the Court, owes a duty to approach the Court with clean hands and disclose complete facts....... "
After the arguments were over, and when this Court, expressed the manner, in which, a public interest litigation is projected, not satisfying the principles of law, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that he had received the copy of the counter affidavit, only in the Forenoon and therefore, wanted time. This was not his plea, when he commenced his arguments, and if there was any such request in the beginning, this Court would have certainly granted time. But, after the arguments are advanced by both parties, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for time, which we are not inclined to grant.
There are no grounds warranting issuance of any Mandamus, as sought for by the petitioner. Considering the conduct of the writ petitioner, more fully detailed in the foregoing paragraphs, while dismissing the writ petition, we deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the District Collector, Madurai District, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, it is open to the District Collector, Madurai District, to collect the cost of Rs. 10,000/- from the petitioner, by proceeding under the Revenue Recovery Act.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.