IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 15.07.2008 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA Writ Petition No.25078 of 2007 G.Sugumaran Petitioner v. 1. The Government of Puducherry, rep. by the Chief Secretary, Puducherry. 2. The Secretary, Local Administration Department, Puducherry. 3. The Mayor of Puducherry, Puducherry Municipality, Puducherry. 4. The Registrar of Companies, Puducherry, Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India, 35, Elango Nagar, I Floor, III Cross, Puducherry 605 011. 5. The Chamber of Commerce, Promulgated by the Decree of the French Republic, rep. By the Mayor of Puducherry, Puducherry. 6.Chamber De Commerce, registered under the Societies Registration Act, Reg. No.105/2000, represented by its General Secretary, 1, Rue Suffren, Puducherry 605 001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. N.Govindasamy, President, Chamber De Commerce, registered under the Societies Registration Act, Reg. No.105/2000, represented by its General Secretary, Rue Suffren, Puducherry 605 001. 8. A.Balasubramaniyan, General Secretary, Chamber De Commerce, registered under the Societies Registration Act, Reg. No.105/2000, rep. By its General Secretary, Rue Suffren, Puducherry 605 001. Respondents Writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of declaration declaring that the certificate of registration issued by the fourth respondent dated 20.03.2000 registering the 6th respondent society as null and void and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct elections to the fifth respondent body and restore the property of the 5th respondent from 6th respondent and to initiate criminal and civil action against the 7th and 8th respondents. For petitioner : Ms.D.Geetha For respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, Senior Counsel, on behalf of Government of Puducherry For respondents 6 to 8 : Mr.G.Masilamani, Senior Counsel, for Mr.Manisundar Gopal ORDER K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. The writ petition is filed as a pro bono publico. The petitioner, claiming himself as the Secretary of the Federation for People's Rights, Puducherry, has filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of declaration to declare that the certificate of registration issued by the fourth respondent – Registrar of Companies, Puducherry, Ministry of Company Affairs dated 20.03.2000 registering the 6th respondent society as null and void and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct elections to the fifth respondent body and restore the property of the 5th respondent from 6th respondent and to initiate criminal and civil action against the 7th and 8th respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following factual basis: The Chamber of Commerce of Pondicherry had been re-organised by a decree dated 07.03.1914, which gave to it the civil personality. As https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ certain difficulties have arisen in the application of the text of the decree, mainly about the election of the members to the consular assembly and its administration, the President of French republic by decree dated 06.07.1934 enacted the Chamber of Commerce of Pondicherry as an organ of industrial and commercial interest of French Settlements in India. Article 2 of the decree provided that the members of Chamber of commerce were to be elected by an electoral body formed by electors of French Nationality having atleast 21 years of age and being licensed traders, managers of commercial or industrial Limited of French companies, etc. All the electors should have their domicile in the jurisdiction of the chamber of commerce since two years atleast. Article 3 provided for the disqualification of members, preparation of electoral rolls and other events for the administration and election of office bearers of the Chamber of Commerce. After the establishment of the fifth respondent, the Chamber of commerce, it purchased 12 shops and a vacant site over an area of 1.9 hectares near the Puduchery port on 06.07.1908 and also purchased building at door No.1, Suffren Street on 19.06.1916, out of the public money from the funds of the administration of Puducherry. The funds were diverted from the collection of 'patante', the tax, collected by the then Contribution Department, now the Revenue Department. Thus, the property purchased by the Chamber of Commerce are the properties belonging to the Government of Puducherry. After independence and coming into force of the Constitution of India, the Ministry of External Affairs passed an order called "the Pondicherry Chamber of Commerce Constitution (Amendment) Order, 1958". It came into force on 01.01.1958 by which Article 2 of the French Decree dated 06.07.1934 was amended by incorporating "French or Indian Nationale" in the place of "French Nationale" to become the member of the Chamber of Commerce. Further, the Legislative Assembly of the Pondicherry Government has passed an Act called the Pondicherry Chamber of Commerce Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1966, by which Article 18 of the decree dated 06.07.1934 has been amended to the effect that the chamber of commerce shall elect from among the members – a President, Vice President, A secretary and a Treasurer and in Article 2 of the said decree for the word 'nomination' the word 'election' had been substituted. On 17.07.1966, the Lieutenant Governor of Pondicherry notified the election of Members to the Chamber of Commerce. The electoral list has been published in the Gazette No.49 of the 03.12.1968. The election of the office bearers was held in the presence of Mayor of Pondicherry, as required by the decree of 1934 and eight members were elected including respondents 7 and 8. Their tenure came to an end in the year 1975 as the tenure was 6 years under Article 15 of the decree. Respondents 7 and 8 were elected as members in the year 1969. Even after the expiry of the tenure, respondents 7 and 8 continued to manage the affairs of the 5th respondent. In the capacity of elected members, they indulged in mismanagement of the chamber's property. In the hilt of that, they got the society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act on 20.03.2000. All the efforts made by the petitioner exposing the illegal act of respondents 7 and 8 by converting into a Governmental organisation into one of a private society to respondents 1 to 3 yielded no result. Hence, the present https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petition. 3. Respondents 1 to 3, the official respondents of the Government of Pondicherry through the the Under Secretary, Local Administration Department, filed a counter and contended, inter alia, that the Chamber of Commerce is a statutory body recognised by the erstwhile French Government by its decree dated 06.07.1934. Even after independence, the Chamber of Commerce was regarded only as a statutory body, as could be seen from the fact that the Government of India brought an amendment to the French Decree, 1934 in the year 1958. The Governor or his representative had power to have access to Chamber of Commerce and be present in the meeting in an Advisory capacity. Though certain powers were vested with the Governor with regard to granting of permission for putting up construction and drawing of amount by the Chamber of Commerce, there was no provision to put the Chamber under the control of the Governor in respect of commission and omission of the chamber of Commerce under the decree. It is further contended that the respondents 7 and 8 even after the expiry of their tenure are virtually managing the affairs of the chamber and its properties. The action of the said respondents in getting the Chamber of Commerce registered under the Provisions of the Societies Registration Act is illegal and the respondents 1 to 3 are contemplating to take suitable action against respondents 7 and 8. 4. Respondents 6 and 8 and the 7th respondent have filed separate counter affidavits. They put in issue the locus standi of the petitioner to file the above writ petition as a pro bono publico one. They further contended that the petitioner previously filed writ petition No.12404 of 2006 for the same relief on the same cause of action, but withdrew the same without assigning any reason and filed the present writ petition. Thus, the petitioner's action is not bona fide. The petitioner has got nothing to do with the Chamber of Commerce, but only a name lender to the person who were terminated from the service of Chamber of Commerce. They explained the constitution and functioning of the Chamber of Commerce by stating that during the French regime traders who were paying 'patante' (pathan) which is a licence fee at the rate of Rs.80, Rs.160/- and Rs.320/- were alone eligible for automatic members of the Chamber of Commerce. The 'patante' (pathan) is nothing but a licence fee for the purpose of doing business. In the year 1968 the Government of Pondicherry abolished the collection of pathan system and introduced sales tax. Hence, the enrolment of new members, as per the decree became impossible. Most of the committee members are dead and only respondents 7 and 8 along with one Packiam are alive. As such, they are looking after the affairs of the Chamber of Commerce in good spirit. The decree of 1934 is only an executive order to regulate the affairs of Chamber of Commerce in French Territory. The enforcement of the 1934 decree has virtually become impossible as the post of Governor and Mayor, who were required to be present and who were empowered to have access with the Chamber of Commerce of Puducherry is not now available. The Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry appointed by the Union of India cannot be regarded as, Governor as it stood in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the decree. There is no post of Mayor now available. As per the Municipalities Act, only elected representative is functioning as the Chairman of the Municipality. Because of the subsequent change in laws governing the Municipalities, the 1934 decree has virtually become unworkable for the purpose of enrolling the members, preparing the electoral rolls and conducting elections and managing the day today affairs of the business and the properties of the Chamber of Commerce. In view of the above said difficulty, the meeting of the members of the Chamber of Commerce who were alive was conducted on 15.03.2000 and unanimously resolved to register the Chamber of Commerce under the Societies Registration Act, which has been extended to Puducherry, with effect from 10.10.1963 for the proper functioning of the Chamber as being done in other States and union territories. The property of the chamber was purchased out of the funds of chamber and borrowed fund, but not out Government fund. Because of the unworkability of the 1934 decree and the subsequent change of law in the union territory, 1934 decree deemed to be repealed. The Chamber of Commerce is functioning as per the bylaws, registered with the authorities under the Societies Registration Act for the purpose for which it was established and hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. From the above narrated facts, the following two points arise for consideration : 1. Whether the writ petition filed as a pro bono publico is maintainable at the hands of the petitioner? 2. Whether any order as prayed for by the petitioner could be passed on the basis of the facts narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition? 6. The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming that he is the Secretary of the Federation for People's Rights, Puduchery. Except saying so, there is no material made available to substantiate the same either in the affidavit or in the so called rejoinder filed in the writ petition to project a public interest. When this Court posed a question as to how a public interest litigation is maintainable at the hands of the petitioner, the petitioner, without obtaining any permission or leave from this Court, pushed into the Registry a rejoinder affidavit alleged to have been filed in response to the counter and rejoinder filed by respondents 6 and 7, in which it is stated that it is the duty of every citizen of our country to safeguard the public property and to abjure violence, to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement listed under Article 51A of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the petitioner is a human rights activist working towards justice, equality and social order, protecting and promoting human rights issues at Pondicherry and Tamilnadu. It is further stated that the petitioner was instrumental in organizing a protest and highlighted the rape committed on one Padmini at Annamalai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nagar police station, Chidambaram and certain events in which he has participated in respect of human rights has been catalogued. 7. Being a human rights activist, cannot by itself, be regarded that the petitioner is having a locus standi to maintain this writ petition. It is repeatedly held by the apex Court that '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.' 8. The apex Court further ruled that the Public Interest Litigation is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at the redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. The apex Court also issued a cautionary note that Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of the public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique consideration by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejecting at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs. Ordinarily, only the aggrieved person has the right to seek redress before a Court of law. (See Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, 2004 (3) SCC 349 and M/S Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra, 2007 (14) Scale 10. 9. It is also well recognised principle that for every action there must be a cause of action. The cause of action, in order to file a writ petition, much less a public interest litigation, should gain some meaning, as stated under section 20-C of the Code of Civil Procedure (See Easterm Coal Fields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee, 2008 (3) SCC 456). So far as the present writ petition is concerned, the petitioner has not stated any cause of action as described in section 20C of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. We are not able to accept that the petitioner has come to the Court with clean hands or benevolent cause for the simple reason that already a Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner on the very same allegations against the Union Territory of Pondicherry, represented by its Chief Secretary, the Secretary to Government, Local Administration Department, Pondicherry, and the Secretary to Government, Law Department, Government of Pondicherry, with the prayers (i) to take immediate and appropriate action on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2005 given against the 6th respondent – Chamber of Commerce, represented by its Secretary, Pondicherry and its erred members and (ii) to direct the 5th respondent – the Registrar of Companies, Pondicherry, to take appropriate action against the sixth respondent on the representation of the petitioner dated 21.10.2005 made to the Lieutenant Governor, Pondicherry, which had been forwarded and received by the 5th respondent in No.105/2000/SRA/Comp/2006 and the representation dated 08.03.2006 of S.Bakkiam, former speaker of the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly and former Treasurer of Chamber De Commerce. 11. The said writ petition came to be disposed of in the following manner on 31.07.2007: "Learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed a letter dated 24.07.2007 to the Registry stating that this writ petition may be posted for withdrawal. Accordingly, the matter is posted today for withdrawal. Learned counsel also submits that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. The petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs." But the present writ petition was filed on 20.07.2007 before this Court on the very same averments sworn in by way of solemn affidavit by the very same person, with a camouflaged prayer as follows : "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an Order, Direction or Writ in the nature of Writ of Declaration declaring that the Certificate of Registration issued by the 4th respondent dated 20.03.2000 registering the 6th respondent society as null and void and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct elections to the 5th respondent Body and restore the property of the 5th respondent from 6th respondent and to initiate criminal and civil action against the 7th and 8th respondents and pass such further or other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper" This action of the petition was explained by the petitioner in the written submissions thus : "The petitioner preferred the present Public Interest Litigation as the question of law involved is affecting the public at large. Originally an individual writ petition was preferred by the petitioner in WP. No.12404 of 2006. The relief claimed in the said writ petition was entirely different from the relief claimed in the present Public Interest Litigation. As the issue raised was of public interest of the State, the writ petition was withdrawn and the present Public Interest Litigation was moved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Sharva Shamica Sankattana V. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (2) LLJ 501 a right to move fresh application after withdrawal of earlier application can be made and no liberty or direction https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to file a fresh application is necessary when there is no order passed on merits. Moreover, the earlier writ petition was only an individual writ petition and for different relief altogether." 12. The above extracted portion shows that the petitioner has originally filed writ petition in his individual capacity and the writ petition has been withdrawn and subsequently, the present writ petition as a pro bono publico was filed. We are of the view that the statement is totally incorrect and is made to get over the objection. 13. In the affidavit of the earlier writ petition in WP No.12404 of 2006, which finds place at page 35 of the typed set of papers, the petitioner has averred as follows : "I am approaching this Hon'ble Court with the present PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION to seek the intervention of this Hon'ble Court to issue directions to the respondents to take appropriate steps to take back the Chamber De Commerce which is a public body created under the French Decree 1934 for the benefit of trade and commerce industry in Pondicherry from the hands of the 6th respondent who grabbed the same illegally by initiating appropriate civil and criminal proceedings against the 6th respondent and its erred members." 14. Hence, the contention that the earlier writ petition was filed in his individual capacity is a blatant incorrect statement and the subsequent statement that the earlier writ petition has been withdrawn with a view to file a public interest litigation is also incorrect, as the earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.07.2007, whereas, the present writ petition has been filed on 20.07.2007 itself and it was listed before the First Bench of this Court on 25.07.2007. On that day, the First Bench directed the Registry to print the name of the Government Pleader (Pondicherry) for the respondents and post high on the Board on 27.07.2007. 15. On 27.07.2007 when the matter came up for hearing the First Bench passed the following order: "Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Issue notice to respondents 6 to 8 returnable on 16.08.2007. Notice to indicate that the petition may be disposed of at the admission stage. In the meantime, until further orders, respondents 6 to 8 are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the property of the 5th/6th respondent" 16. Thus, it is on record that on the date of dismissal of the earlier writ petition, there are two writ petitions pending before this Court filed by the very same petitioner. The petitioner, having filed the present writ petition and obtained interim orders would very https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ well, rather obligated to bring it to the notice of the Court while getting order of dismissal in the earlier writ petition as withdrawn, which the petitioner failed to do, for the apparent reason that in the earlier writ petition there was no interim order granted by the Court, which factum has been admitted by the parties across the bar. 17. The other reason supplemented for supporting the present writ petition is that the relief claimed in the earlier writ petition was entirely different from the present Public Interest Litigation. As already extracted, the earlier writ petition was also moved as Public Interest Litigation only and the prayer sought for in the two writ petitions are identical, but camouflaged to be different. The relief sought for in the earlier writ petition was for issuance of mandamus directing respondent 1 to 4 (in that writ petition) to take immediate and proper action on the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2005 against the 6th respondent (in that writ petition) and its erred members and directing 5th respondent (in that writ petition) the Registrar of Societies to take appropriate action against the sixth respondent (in that writ petition) on the representation dated 21.10.2005. On going through the representation dated 21.10.2005, it could be seen that the affidavit of the present writ petition is a reproduction of that representation. The prayers sought for in that representation are : 1. Initiation of immediate action for cancellation of the Registration of the Chamber of Commerce made with the Registrar of Companies and Societies and restoration of status quo-ante, subjecting the affairs of the Chamber under the control of the Local Administrative Department, Government of Pondicherry, in accordance with the French Decree 1934 and the Pondicherry Chamber of Commerce Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1966. 2.Request launching of criminal prosecution against Mr.N.Govindasamy, President and Mr.A.Balasubramanian, General Secretary for their involvement in corrupt practices, fraudulent activities, commission of Breach of Trust in relation to the affairs of the Chamber and also for their omissions in managing the affairs of the organisation. 3. Until the affairs of the Chamber is streamlined and put back on the rails, the Government shall swing into speedy action and restrain the Board of Management of the Chamber to function. An administrator or a Special Officer from the Government shall be appointed to cleanse the affairs of the organisation and regulate the proper functioning of it, so that it would subserve the common economic interest of the members. 4. As done in the past, Mr.N.Govindasamy, the President and Mr.A.Balasubramanian, the General Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, would muster all their strength and employ their men, to destroy all available documentary evidences, files and related records. Hence, both of them have to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unseated from their posts and barred from entry into the premises of the Chamber. 18. The very same relief is now sought for in the present writ petition. Thus, the contention that the prayer sought for in the earlier writ petition is entirely different from the present one is incorrect. 19. From the affidavit as well as the representation on which reliance has been made by the petitioner, it is obvious