Madras High Court clamps down on frivolous litigation, PILs without public interest, "fancy claims and worthless petitions" [Read Orders]

In a series of recent orders, the First Bench of the Madras High Court has announced its waning tolerance for frivolous cases and public interest litigation (PIL) preferred without there being any public interest or without first resorting to alternative remedies..In a February 5 order, the Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed,."There are several matters of pressing urgency pertaining to the lives and livelihood of many citizens which do not get appropriate attention because of some fancy claims and worthless petitions carried to the Court.".The petitioner, in this case, had sought the Court's intervention for the implementation of the Tamil Nadu Shop and Establishment Rules and the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishment Rules, among other prayers. The Bench proceeded to dispose of the case by giving the petitioner liberty to approach the concerned authorities with a representation on his grievance (P Anand v Commissioner of Labour)..There are several matters of pressing urgency...which do not get appropriate attention because of some fancy claims and worthless petitions.Madras High Court.In another case, M Umapathy v. Indian Overseas Bank, the Bench upheld the award of Rs 10,000 as costs on the litigant-appellant, which was earlier imposed for filing a writ petition challenging a chargesheet or a show cause notice. Since there was no allegation of natural justice principles being violated, there was no scope for the Court to interfere, it was noted. .The appeal was dismissed, but not before the Court took note that, "Oftentimes, exuberant litigants jump the gun and rush to the court at the first available opportunity without completing the usual course of things before the appropriate authorities.".While upholding the costs imposed, the Bench added that a message has to be sent loud and clear that frivolous litigations would not be tolerated.."Courts are filled with dishonest petitions and untruthful defences in most cases. It is because of the frivolous litigations that are filed that the system has clogged up. It is time that appropriate costs are awarded to reward dishonest and luxury litigants so that they are warned of their course of action in future. ".A message has to be sent loud and clear that frivolous litigations would not be tolerated.Madras High Court.In Sri Kannanur Mariamman Eri Neer Pasana Vivasayigal Sangam v. The District Collector and ors, involving a PIL moved on the decision to lease out a water body for fishing, the Court remarked,."Matters of the present kind should not form the subject matter of any public interest litigation to waste Court time. There is very little assistance that the Court can render in such direct executive functioning. If a public interest litigation were to be generated in respect of every village tank all over the State, there would be little time to tend to other business.".In Gunaseelan v. The District Collector, the Court was constrained to remark that it "cannot be reduced to suggesting the location of construction at proposed sites", when a petitioner sought the Court's intervention so that he may "dictate how and exactly where" a school building should be constructed..In D Leela v. The Authorised Officer, the Court imposed Rs 5,000 as costs on the petitioner who sought the Court's intervention for directions against the dispossession and sale of certain secured assets by a bank."It is not a surprise that the mere filing of the writ petition has given the writ petitioner the time that the writ petitioner intended to waste and the very receipt of the writ petition has shooed prospective bidders away," the High Court observed at the outset.The Bench proceeded to emphasise that it would be very slow to entertain the plea as it would "encourage persons of the petitioner's ilk to crowd these corridors instead of being required to pay or make the deposit with the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal."Further observing that the case pertains to a commercial transaction between a bank and its constituent, the Court went on to dismiss the writ petition as meritless."The bank has been needlessly dragged into the unnecessary proceedings," the Bench added, while directing the petitioner to pay the costs imposed to the bank..A writ petition moved to restrain a bank from carrying out an e-auction also saw the Court point out in K Shanmugam and and v. The Recovery Officer and ors that the petitioners had moved the High Court in an attempt to dodge a pre-deposit they would have to make if the Debts Recovery Tribunal was approached instead."... pre-deposit required to be made is attempted to be dodged by resorting to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ahead of the regular statutory remedy under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993," the order said.The said attempt was averted, with the Court dismissing the petition and directing the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum instead..In M/s. Malliah Tea Factory Pvt. Ltd. v. The District Collector and ors, the Court was constrained to clarify that "no mandamus can lie in respect of commercial loans extended by banks to any private party" when the petitioner sought the Court's intervention to stall the repayment of a bank loan on the ground that there is a government COVID-19 package applicable to its case."If there is any package which applies to the petitioner, there is no doubt that the respondent bank can take the same into consideration," the Court responded..In another case, where a senior lawyer sought the Court's intervention so that the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog) would consider his proposals to improve the agricultural sector and generate employment, the Bench said,"The respondent is an expert body tasked with taking necessary measures to improve the economy in every respect. As such, this Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the respondent to accept and take further steps in terms of the proposals by the writ petitioner."All the same, the Court asked NITI Aayog to consider the petitioner's proposals within eight weeks (TS Gopalan v The Chairman, NITI)..That the courts cannot ordinarily interfere in matters of State policy was reiterated in KR Selvakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, where a GO extending certain exemptions to government-operated diesel bunk operators, but not to private operators, was challenged."Judicial review will not extend to such an aspect of administrative functioning to supplant the Court's decision over the legislature's or the executive's," the Court emphasised..In S Sridharan v. Secretary to the government, a petitioner seeking the amendment of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 was told by the Court that mandamus will not lie against legislature to legislate. "... it is elementary that a writ of mandamus will not lie directing the legislature to legislate and, consequently, no direction can be issued by this branch of the sovereign to any other to bring about any amendment to a statute, no consequential orders in respect thereof can also be made."The Court added that the authorities concerned may, at their discretion, consider the petitioner's representation on the issue..The case of S Muralidharan v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Chief Wildlife Warden saw the Court reiterate that it is not an expert in matters that require scientific assessment. In this case, the Court was faced with a PIL to appoint competent international veterinary consultants and rescuers on a permanent basis to guide the authorities in dealing with elephants."... no rocket science is necessary to bring out that human inhabitation is encroaching into forest land and the corridors used by elephants to cross over from one forest to another", the Court observed, adding that such corridors and forests need to be protected.All the same, the Court pointed out that the best it could do is to urge the appropriate authorities to take the required steps."The Court is not a specialist to deal with matters of the present kind. At the best, the Court can goad the appropriate authorities to take remedial and preventive measures in the spirit of what the writ petitioner seeks," the Bench said..Oftentimes, exuberant litigants jump the gun and rush to the court at the first available opportunity.Madras High Court.Shortly after Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee took over at the helm of the High Court last month, he made it clear that he would not entertain PILs in a lax manner. On the first day in office, he voiced a cautionary note over expecting the Court to interfere in matters that warrant expert assessment. .A few days and several encroachment petitions styled as PILs later, the Chief Justice observed in exasperation,"If every encroachment matter becomes a PIL, we will be doing nothing else.".There is a proliferation of PILs asking courts to undertake work only capable of being performed by Executive: Madras High Court.Several encroachment "PILs" have since been disposed of, with a general observation by the first Bench that, ."In several earlier writ petitions of this nature, this Court observed that it is not inclined to entertain public interest litigation unless the matter concerned involves the larger public interest ….In the event the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the official respondents, it is open to the writ petitioner to pursue his remedies in accordance with law, otherwise than by a public interest litigation, after establishing his locus standi in this regard.".In the recent days, similar orders have also been passed in PILs to remove encroachments (K Periyasamy v. The District Collector and ors, W Edwin Wilson v. The Chief Secretary and ors), to maintain, restore, clean and deepen a pond (MI Nagore Meeran v. The State and ors), to repair roads (G Nagabushanam Naidu v. The Principal Secretary to Government), against the erasure by the Archaeological Survey of India of a religious symbol, the 'Thiruman Kappu' on the walls of Vaishnavite temples (S Murali v. The Deputy Superintending Archaeologist and ors), to name a few. .[Read Orders]