“Writ after writ filed seeking directions to authorities for representation, there is every possibility that the authorities are acting in collusion ” Madras High Court

Justice SM Subramaniam of Madras High Court has noted that many writs are filed in the court seeking directions to be given to authorities to consider representations made by litigants. The court noted that if the court gives such directions the litigants are working out in a corruptive manner to get a favourable order based on such direction to consider their representations.

The court remarked “There is every possibility that the authorities are acting in collusion with the litigants in the event of passing such an order to consider the representation.”

The above observation was made in a case where the the Court directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner based on his representation in the light of the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.140, Finance (Pay Cell) for revision of his pay. The petitioner contended that the respondent corporation has passed an order of rejection stating that the said G.O., is not applicable to the respondent corporation. The petitioner further contended that whhen the copy of the G.O., has been communicated to the Corporation, the Government Order is to be applied to its employees as well.  He thus contended that the order of rejection amounts to Contempt of Court.

The counsel for the respondents contended that the observations made by the Court is only for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner with reference to the representation and were not adjudicate the same in favour of the petitioner.

The court on hearing the parties held that “the court is of the considered opinion that the scope of contempt cannot be expanded for the purpose of adjudication of the issues on merits. The orders passed by the Courts alone are to be considered for the purpose of invoking the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.”

The court further held that  the spirit directions and the implications are to be considered and that it is not as if an order of direction to consider the representation is to be construed as an order of direction issued in favour of the representation of the petitioner.

The court held that “thus, in the absence of any positive direction to the respondents to grant certain benefits, the Court would not be in a position to interpret an order directing the authorities to consider the representation under the pretext that the said order confers a right to get favourable orders from the respondents.”

The court noted that there is a growing trend of sending representations to authorities and  then filing writ petitions are filed based on them to obtain  routine orders of direction to consider the representations. The court noted that such orders would not do any service to the cause of justice. “Contrarily, it results in multiplicity of proceedings.”

The court further noted “Writ petitions after writ petitions are filed based on such directions. Otherwise, the litigants are working out in a corruptive manner to get a favourable order based on such direction to consider the representation. There is every possibility that the authorities are acting in collusion with the litigants in the event of passing such an order to consider the representation.”

The court noted that the petitioner has argued that once it is observed that the representation should be considered in the light of the Government Order, then it is to be considered in favour of the writ petitioner. The court held that such an argument is unknown to law and that the Court is of the opinion that mere reference made by the Courts to consider the representation would not confer any right and it is for the authorities to look into the matter and then take a decision based on the representation.

In conclusion, the court noted “This exactly is the reason why the Courts are little reluctant in issuing such orders of direction to consider the representation.”

 

Case title: Chelladurai Vs TN State Transport Corporation