Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Valavala Mallikarjuna Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 November, 2023
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.196 of 2023
Valavala Mallikarjuna Rao,
S/o. (late) Venkateswara Rao,
Hindu, Male, Age 63 years,
R/o. H.No.10-34-5, 19th ward,
Bhagyalakshmipeta, Tadepalligudem,
West Godavari District.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration & Urban
Development Department, A.P. Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi and seven others.
...Respondents
Mr. Y. Soma Raju, counsel for the petitioner.
Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban
Development, for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.
Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Mr. N. Srihari, counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7.
Mr. P. S. P. Suresh Kumar, counsel for respondent No.8.
HCJ & RRR, J
DATE : 29.11.2023
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (ORAL):
1. The present petition has been filed purportedly in public
interest by the petitioner who claims to have been previously
elected as a councillor, Tadepalligudem Municipality and claims to
have the knowledge as regards the method in which the municipal
general funds are to be utilised for the welfare of its residents.
1.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the
decision of laying down of a cement concrete road in between the
agricultural lands in a non-residential area allegedly only for the
benefit of private respondent No.8 - who is a Minister in the present
Government, and his family members, abutting their agricultural
lands situate in survey Nos.39/1, 43, 43-A, 43/4A, 44/1B, 44/2B
and 44/3 in Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem. The petitioner claims that
instead the road ought to have been constructed in the residential
areas where there are houses within the Municipalities.
2. The petitioner also has annexed the site plan with the writ
petition which shows that the proposed road although cuts across
agricultural lands on either side, yet abutting the agricultural lands
HCJ & RRR, J
exists the National Institute of Technology, which also has a gate
opening towards the proposed road. Not only this, there is a RTC
complex at the end of the proposed road which joins with the RTC
depot road and finally merges in the KN road on the one side and
the National Highway on the other side. In fact, from the map it is
clear that, the proposed road would provide free access to
commuters and would connect KN road to the National Highway
and serve not only the students and faculty of the National Institute
of Technology, who are numbering 1200, according to the
statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, but would also
link the RTC depot road and the Aerodrome road to the National
Highway.
3. The fact that some land belonging to respondent No.8 and his
close family members abuts the proposed road, therefore, in our
opinion, can be no justification for holding that the construction of
the said road was against public interest. The present petition, to
us, appears to be filed more out of political motive, rather than
serving any genuine public interest.
HCJ & RRR, J
4. In fact, counsel for respondent No.8, with a view to show
political motives of the petitioner drew our attention, to yet another
PIL bearing number W.P.(PIL).No.117 of 2023, wherein respondent
No.8 herein figures as respondent No.10 in the said PIL.
4.1. Reference in this regard was made to an order passed by this
Court on 18.10.2023, passed in W.P. (PIL).No.117 of 2023, wherein
the proceedings as against the said respondent No.8 herein along
with few others, had been closed. It was therefore, sought to be
urged that the petitioner in the guise of public interest had
repeatedly been attacking the said respondent No.8, only to serve
his political agenda and motives.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Courts have repeatedly been sensitive to the fact that
PILs had to be admitted with great care and caution and that the
same ought to be entertained only with a view to prevent genuine
public wrong or public injury and not for achieving any private
agenda or serve any political motive and also noticed with pain
that, the PIL jurisdiction which had been so carefully carved out,
created and nurtured with care and caution by courts was being
HCJ & RRR, J
blatantly abused by filing petitions with oblique motives. Apex
Court therefore, held in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh
Chaufal and others1 that time had come to impose exemplary costs
as deterrent, against frivolous and vexatious Public Interest
Litigations to ensure that, message goes in the right direction that
petitions filed with oblique motives do not have the approval of the
Courts.
7. Reference is also apt to the judgment of the Apex Court in the
Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prem Chandra Mishra & Others2
where it held:
"10.....13. 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. The attractive brand name of
public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of
mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or
public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal
vendetta....
14......
15. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the
applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information
given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The
1 2010 (3) SCC 402;
2 2007 (14) SCC 281;
HCJ & RRR, J
information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has
to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (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. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be
liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of
redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere
reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The
Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and
busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-
spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They
pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no
interest of the public or even of their own to protect."
8. Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the
ratio of the aforementioned judgments, it clearly appears, to us, to
be a petition filed by the petitioner to serve only his political
agenda. It is not denied that the petitioner is also a person with a
political background and so is respondent No.8, who is currently
holding the Office of the Minister for Endowments Department and
is also an elected member from Tadepalligudem Assembly
Constituency. As to why, should a road at all have been constructed,
which would benefit also the respondent No.8, appears to be the aim
and object of the petitioner in the present petition.
HCJ & RRR, J
9. From the tone and tenor of the averments made in the writ
petition, it can be seen that the benefit which others would get from
the road being made a cement concrete road has been not clearly
discussed or highlighted. It is not denied that there already exists a
road which is now sought to be improved by laying of cement
concrete over it.
9.1 The petitioner totally ignored the fact that approximately
1200 students of National Institute of Technology, which is in close
proximity to the agricultural land mentioned in the writ petition,
would also stand benefitted by the improvement of the road and
would connect the KN road and Aerodrome road with the National
Highway.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
opinion that the present petition is not filed in genuine public
interest but for oblique purposes.
10.1 We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present petition
and dismiss the same with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) to be deposited in the Advocates' Welfare Fund, by
the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. The
HCJ & RRR, J
matter shall be listed for compliance before this Court on
03.01.2024 only for purposes of ensuring that the amount imposed
as costs is deposited.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
SSN
HCJ & RRR, J
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.196 of 2023
(Per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ)
DATE : 29.11.2023
SSN
