M.Umapathy v. Indian Overseas Bank (2021) - Frivolous Cases & PILs

• DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 02^nd February, 2021
• JUDGES:  Hon’ble Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee Hon’ble Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
• PARTIES: M Umapathy (Plaintiff), Indian Overseas Bank (Respondent)

SUBJECT

After 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 (which will be mentioned in the overview) preferred without there being any public interest or without first resorting to alternative remedies. In this case, specifically the order was passed by the High Court.

AN OVERVIEW

1. In another particular case pertaining to the same ordeal, the petitioner, 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.      
2. To take into account another case of frivolous PILs, 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.
3. Taking into account another case where writ petition moved to restrain a bank from carrying out an e-auction also saw the Court point out in K Shanmugam 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. The said case attempt was averted, with the Court dismissing the petition and directing the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum instead.
4. The court has taken into account several other cases in addition to the ones stated above and filed the order.
5. In this particular case, M Umapathy v. Indian Overseas Bank, the Bench held the award of Rs 10,000 as costs on the litigant-appellant, which was earlier imposed for filing a writ petition challenging 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.
6. Due to all the frivolous PIL’s the court held that, It was time that appropriate costs are awarded to reward dishonest and luxury litigants so that they are warned of their course of action in future.
7. Hence, the order impugned calls for no interference as there is no merit in the appeal.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Constitution of India

• Article 32- It affirms the right to move the Supreme Court if a fundamental right is violated.
• Article 226 – It empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in valid cases), directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them.

ISSUES

• A generalization should not be made that every PIL is a frivolous case. There should a more clear direction as to what is constituted as a valid PIL. It should not confuse the masses.
• It was stated by the High Court that, if every encroachment matter becomes a PIL, we will be doing nothing else.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

The court observed that there are umpteen 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.  After analyzing a number of PIL (as mentioned about in the “overview) cases the court came to a consensus to pass the following order. 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 of office, he voiced a cautionary note over expecting the Court to interfere in matters that warrant expert assessment.                   

1. It was observed that, it is elementary that a charge-sheet or a show-cause notice cannot be interfered with in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is demonstrated to be completely in error of jurisdiction or otherwise absurd and completely baseless even to the meanest mind. The object of the principle is that a show-cause notice or a charge-sheet does not cause any prejudice to the recipient as the recipient has an opportunity to make a representation there against it. It often leads to that, 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.
2. It was also observed that is not the writ petitioner's case that there has been any breach of the principles of natural justice. Owing to that it, only a show-cause notice or a charge-sheet has been issued. It also cannot be the writ petitioner's case that the person who has addressed the notice did not have the authority to do so. It additionally cannot be the writ petitioner's case that there is absolutely no basis to the charge-sheet or the show-cause notice.
3. Due to the circumstances as stated above, it was most appropriate for the writ petition to be dismissed. As to the costs, the appellate court would be slow to interfere in such a situation where the writ petition appears to be completely unjustified leading to its dismissal. 

CONCLUSION

Culmination of all the points stated above, the order was given accordingly. After a few days and several encroachment petitions styled as PILs later, the Chief Justice observed in exasperation, he stated that, "If every encroachment matter becomes a PIL, we will be doing nothing else." Owing to the occurrence of the said order umpteen number of encroachment "PILs" have since been disposed of, with a general observation by the first Bench that, and I quote, "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 present 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.

Click here to read the original copy of the judgment