Madras High Court
Deepa Dunean Mckenzie Phillips vs Auroville Foundation on 11 August, 2023
W.P.SR.No.87772 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.SR.No.87772 of 2023
Deepa Dunean Mckenzie Phillips
Solitude Farm, Auroville,
Villupuram,
Tamil Nadu - 605 101 ..Petitioner
Vs.
Auroville Foundation,
Auroville Foundateion Bhavan,
Auroville-605 101
Represented by its Secretary,
Dr.Jayanti Ravi ... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent Foundation to stop the planing
and construction of the proposed Outer Ring Road and asking the petitioner to
vacate their residential, asset, until proper procedure is followed as per law.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Swaroop
For Respondent : Mr.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/7
W.P.SR.No.87772 of 2023
ORDER
This writ petition has been placed before us by the Registry raising a
doubt as to its maintainability in view of the pending Special Leave Petition.
This Court also had raised its doubt on the maintainability of the writ petition,
not only on the query raised by the Registry as to its maintainability, but also as
to the maintainability of the writ itself as against the respondent herein, against
whom, a direction is sought for to stop the planning and construction of the
proposed Outer Ring Road, for which, the petitioner is asked to vacate the
residential premises, in which, she is in occupation.
2. When the matter was taken up, the doubt that had arose in the mind of
this Court was requested to be clarified by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is
a creature of statute, viz.,The Auroville Foundation Act, 1988. He would
further submit that he had been residing at Solitude Farm, Auroville since
2007 and that there is a 'Master Plan' for Auroville which had been approved
by the Department of Higher Education of the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India, which had come into force on 28.08.2010.
Thereafter, a further Master Plan was sought to be implemented which had
been a subject matter of litigation before the National Green Tribunal, where
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/7
W.P.SR.No.87772 of 2023
various direction had been issued, against which, the respondent herein had
also preferred a Special Leave Petition and the same is pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the new Master Plan that is to be
implemented, the petitioner herein was suppose to vacate the residence in her
occupation to enable the respondent to lay a road. He would submit that the
respondent had not followed the guidelines issued by the National Green
Tribunal in laying the Outer Ring Road and therefore, they cannot implement
the proposal to lay the Outer Ring Road. He would further submit, it is the
petitioner and her husband who had invested lot of time and money in the
residential asset and had raised Organic Farm and also running a Cafe and to
relocate would cause undue financial loss and emotional hardship. He would
further submit that since the respondent is a statutory body, a writ petition
would lie against the respondent.
4. We are afraid that the contentions raised by the leanred counsel for the
petitioner on the maintainability of the writ petition simpliciter on the ground
that the respondent is a creature of a statute and being managed by the office of
the Union of India would alone not be enough to hold the writ petition as
maintainable.
5. In the present case, what the respondent seeks to remedy is his
personal right to hold on to the property and it is not in dispute that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/7
W.P.SR.No.87772 of 2023
property belongs to the respondent. The petitioner had specifically admitted
that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in 2007 towards the change of
roof and extension of the first floor. It is not the case of the petitioner that the
property belonged to her. It is presumed that pursuant to an understanding, the
petitioner had been permitted to reside in the residential asset of the
respondent. The respondent seeks to improve its property. A reading of the
statutory enactment, viz., The Auroville Foundation Act, does not envisage any
provisions where the property of the respondent would be given to third party
either on rent or lease or otherwise. The preamble of the enactment would
suggest that the Act had been enacted to provide for acquisition and transfer of
undertakings of Auroville and to vest such undertakings in a foundation
established for the purpose with a view to make long term arrangements for the
better management and further development of Auroville.
6. It is pertinent to note that Auroville was founded by the "Mother" as
an International Cultural Township. Since there were various difficulties that
had arisen in the management of Auroville, the management had been vested
with the Central Government for a limited period by the Auroville (Emergency
Provisions) Act, 1980. To resolve the issue of management of Auroville, the
Parliament thought it fit to promulgate the Auroville Foundation Act. The Act
envisages a Governing Board, the term of office of the members of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/7
W.P.SR.No.87772 of 2023
Governing Board, the Committees of the Governing Board including the
Residents' Assembly. The lis that is being raised by the petitioner herein is not
traceable to any of the provisions of the said enactment.
7. Further, the respondent being the owner of the property, is entitled to
utilise the same to the best of the utilisation to its benefit. From the
communications between the petitioner and the respondent, it could be seen
that the petitioner is not sought to be thrown out of the Society but for
betterment of the property, the petitioner is sought to be relocated to a different
place. The claim of the petitioner is that in the development of the residential
asset, the petitioner and her husband had put in physical efforts such as
developing permaculture and is also running a cafe. We are of the view that the
lis that has been raised in this writ petition would not fall within any of the
parameters that had been envisaged under the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988
and it is a lis of an understanding/contract that had been entered between the
petitioner and the respondent, for which, she is not entitled to invoke the
remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. In support of our reasonings, we would rely upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2005(6) SCC 657 (Binny Limited vs.
V.Sadasivam) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, while issuing a direction to a
private body had held that the scope of Mandamus is limited to the enforcement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5/7
W.P.SR.No.87772 of 2023
of a public duty. Further, in the judgment reported in 2021(7) SCC 535 (Jigya
Yadhav (Minor) vs. CBSE and others), the Hon'ble Apex Court had posed itself
questions as to whether there was an enforceable legal right and as to whether
the bye-laws have the force of law and directions can be enforced only in
conformity thereof. The Hon'ble Apex Court had also further held that the
mechanical directions by way of Mandamus to a public authority, without
going into the veracity of the claim and without sufficiently explaining why the
case demands an extraordinary treatment, should not be made.
9. In the present case, we have categorically found that the lis that the
petitioner's seeks to remedy is private and does not relate to public law remedy.
Therefore, we find that the writ petition as against the respondent in the present
lis is not maintainable and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs.
(J.N.B,J.) (K.B, J.)
Index : Yes / No 11.08.2023
Internet : Yes
vsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6/7
W.P.SR.No.87772 of 2023
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABH,J.
vsi
W.P.SR.No.87772 of 2023
11.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7/7
