The Madras High Court today expressed strong disapproval over Public Interest Litigation (PILs) being moved in matters that involve tasks that could only be performed by the State authorities (P Harishkumar v. The Secretary to Government and 12 others)..In an order passed while disposing of a PIL concerning a bridge for a village, and involving grievances over how vehicles and machinery are being allowed to be used in an area, the Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed,."There is a proliferation of Public Interest Litigation that calls upon the judiciary to undertake fundamental works only capable of being performed by the executive.".Pertinently, the Court was critical, in its order, over the petitioner first approaching the High Court, without waiting for his representation to be considered by the concerned authority.."... the first stop is the High Court of State. Such conduct cannot be appreciated. If the petitioner is a villager, there is a personal element of interest involved and such matters cannot be converted to PIL and the Division Bench of the Constitutional Court disturbed", the Court said..There is a proliferation of Public Interest Litigation that calls upon the judiciary to undertake fundamental works only capable of being performed by the executive.Madras High Court."What kind of PIL is this?" Chief Justice Banerjee was prompted to query this afternoon, when the PIL came up this afternoon. The Court eventually passed an order directing the petitioner to approach to the concerned authority to ventilate his grievances. .While the petitioner responded that he has already made the representation, the Chief Justice suggested orally that he pursue the representation sent. .As the petitioner's counsel persisted in his arguments, highlighting that the plea involves the interest of a village, the Bench again made it clear that the Court would not be entertaining the PIL. The Chief Justice remarked, "We will not allow the politicisation of the court.. we are not the executive, we are not the administration.".In the course of its order, the Court has also noted that if the petitioner is a villager, personal interest in the matter could not be ruled out..The Bench added that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the response of the relevant authorities to his representation, he may file a writ petition, but not by way of public interest. .Another case that followed the disposal of this plea also saw the Court express similar views, with the Bench finding that "adversarial proceedings have been converted into a Public Interest Litigation." .Noting that the matter involved a dispute over an alleged encroachment, the Court asked the petitioner to air his grievaces before the local authorities and to follow up the matter in accordance with law and workout their remedies, but not in the form of a PIL. If there is any private dispute, the appropriate forum would be a civil court, the Court added (J Devendran v. The Commissioner and 3 others). .Yet another case that followed soon after concerning the effect of natural calamities on farmers in the Nilgiris saw the Chief Justice again raise eyebrows over how the Court's PIL jurisdiction has been invoked. ."Why is this a PIL? You are an association, you are directly involved. it is a personal interest. Why is it in public interest?... You are an association, directly affected by a particular calamity", Chief Justice Banerjee orally observed. .The Nilgiris District Floriculture Association (petitioner), however, appraised the Court that notice had already been issued in the matter earlier and that what was only being sought were the implementation of certain directions (Nilgiris District Floriculture v. Union of India and 8 others)..The petitioner's counsel added that they were not only representing the interests of the Association's members but also other affected farmers. After making further submissions in the matter, the Court proceeded to eventually post the matter next in March. .The developments come a day after the same Bench deprecated the proclivity to style individual encroachment cases as PILs. .If every encroachment matter becomes a PIL, we will be doing nothing else: Madras High Court.The Court had occasion to reiterate this aspect today as well, in certain encorachment PILs that came up before the Court.