IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 30-03-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.H.L.GOKHALE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN WRIT PETITION No.26128 OF 2009 Soma Velandi ... Petitioner -vs- 1.Dr.Anthony Elangovan 2.The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 3.The Sr.Deputy General Manager, Southern Railway Headquarters, Park Town, Chennai – 3. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to take immediate action on the petitioner's complaint dated 20.04.2009 and 21.04.2009 by way of transfer of the case before the Central Bureau of Investigation for effective action and to recover the properties before the retirement of the first respondent on 08.12.2009. For petitioner : Mr.Soma Velandi, Party-in-person. For respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.M.Vellaichamy O R D E R V.DHANAPALAN,J. What is sought for in this Writ Petition, which is styled as Public Interest Litigation, is a direction to the second respondent to take immediate action on the petitioner's complaints, dated 20.04.2009 and 21.04.2009, for entrusting the case relating to false Community Certificate produced by the first respondent to the Central Bureau of Investigation for effective action and to recover https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the properties before the retirement of the first respondent on 08.12.2009. 2. Petitioner belongs to Indian-Hindu-Arunthathiyar community, which is classified as a Scheduled Caste. He claims to be the Managing Director of "Inthiyan Secret Detective Council Private Ltd."; Editor of "Crime Ambalam", a fortnightly magazine, and also Chairman of "Inthiyan Journalists and Detective Associations' Federation". He also states that he is rendering social service to all types of consumer protection matters and protection of civil rights, human rights, ex-servicemen welfare and encouraging inter- caste marriages, providing legal aid and finding out trade mark and patent right misuse. 3. According to the petitioner, the first respondent was born Christian on 09.12.1949 and baptised in Savariar R.C.Church Vadaseri at Nagercoil; he completed S.S.L.C. in Nagercoil as B.C. (R.C) and joined in the Chengalpattu Medical College in 1971 by fabricating the false community certificate as S.C.from Nagercoil; that in Kanyakumari District areas, the Bharathar Community, if it is Hindu, is classified as S.C., and, if it is Christian, is classified as B.C; the first respondent misrepresented that he is Hindu Bharathar and, as such, the Community Certificate as S.C.was issued to him by the local Revenue Authority, even though he belonged to Christianity and the certificate ought to have been issued as B.C.only. On 31.03.2007, the petitioner shot off a letter to the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, requesting the details of the first respondent, to which, he received a reply from the Collector of Kanyakumari District that the first respondent was Christian Bharathar (Backward Class Community). 4. Also, it is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent, after completion of his medical course, got employment in Southern Railway on 12.01.1976 under S.C.Community; the first respondent had not only created bogus community certificate as S.C.for himself, but to his daughter as well for medical college and she is now employed in Corporation Dispensary; the first respondent has got promotion in the Railway Hospital without any transfer and is now the Chief Medical Director, under which capacity he admitted more than 100 students for the National Board on monetary consideration and he used to receive huge amounts from the manufacturers and suppliers of medical equipments, medicines and other materials. 5. It is further stated in the affidavit that the first respondent had purchased several bungalows in the State of Tamil Nadu under the names of benami. The petitioner complained the matter to the third respondent on 20.04.2009, but there was no reply. Thereafter, he sent a complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Southern Region, EVK Sampath Building, Chennai, to which, the petitioner was informed that the complaint was forwarded https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Railway Headquarters, Park Town, Chennai, but no action was taken. The first respondent was to retire from service on 08.12.2009. Under the circumstances, the petitioner had filed this Writ Petition, in public interest, for the relief stated supra. 6. We have heard the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and also gone through the records. 7. At the outset, it is to be stated that the scope of entertaining a petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation, coupled with the locus standi of the petitioner, particularly, in matters involving service of an employee, has been examined by the Supreme Court in various cases. Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the petitioner; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests viz., (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others ; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. 8. Public Interest Litigation is a weapon, which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the Judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity- seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with exemplary costs so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motives do not have the approval of the Courts. 9. When a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the Court has to be cautious to see whether the attack under the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object. Since in service matters public interest litigation cannot be filed, there is no scope for taking action, particularly, when the petition is itself not maintainable. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Court must also maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. The above is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Others, 2005 (5) Supreme Court Cases 136. 10. In the case on hand, the issue as to the genuineness of the Community Certificate issued to the first respondent as an S.C. is already confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16615 of 2009, dated 20.11.2009. That apart, as held by the Supreme Court in Gurpal Singh's case, referred to above, since the grievance of the petitioner relates to service matter, no Public Interest Litigation could be entertained. It is also to be seen that the first respondent, against whom action is sought, has already retired from service in the month of December,2009. 11. Following our above discussion, this Writ Petition is only to be dismissed and, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which is a Constitutional body established to exclusively deal with the issues arising out of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, to have his grievance resolved, if he is so advised, by putting forth all the points that are raised before this Court, in which event, this order shall not have any bearing on the Commission in deciding the issues on merits. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar dixit To 1.The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2.The Sr.Deputy General Manager, Southern Railway Headquarters, Park Town, Chennai – 3. 1 cc To Mr.Soma Velandi, Advocate, SR.20924. W.P.No.26128 OF 2009 AR(CO) RVL 31.03.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/