AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Palanivelu, J.—Learned Special Government Pleader is directed to take notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.
The petitioner is a practising Advocate in Thuckalay in Kanyakumari District. He also claims to be the District President of Siva Shena, a
political party, Kanyakumari District and was instrumental in organizing various service programs to the public, such as Blood Donation Camps,
providing Ambulance Service for poor and needy, etc. He has filed this writ petition, as a public interest litigation, seeking to quash the Tender
Notification, dated 30.10.2007, of the 1st respondent published in Tamil Daily ""Dinakaran"", dated 04.11.2007, calling tenders for issuance of
licence to 240 temporary open space shops for a specified period.
(a) It is submitted that Kanyakumari is a place of international importance, which attracts tourists from all over the country as well as from
foreign countries. It is an International Tourist Resort as well as a national Heritage centre, as declared by the Government of India. Sun-Rising and
Sun-Setting are peculiar features in this place, which attract more number of tourists to this tourist spot. In addition to this, picnic spots like, Gandhi
Mandapam, vivekananda Memorial Rock and Saint Iyyan Thriuvallurvar statue are also there, for which the tourists attraction is more.
(b) It is further stated that during every November, December and January, there will be heavy flow of tourists who have undertaken pilgrimage to
Lord lyyappa in Kerala as they use to cross Kanyakumari and have darshan of Bagawati Amman. At the relevant point of time, there will be much
crowd of devotees besides the tourists who are coming in a routine. The devotees of Lord lyyappa deem it as a custom and tradition to take holy
dip in the sea in Kanyakumari.
(c) In Kanyakumari, Amman Sannathi street and Beach Road are heavily congested and during festival and seasonal periods, plying of vehicles is
banned to a greater extent. There are so many permanent shops in the said two streets and they do not make any hindrance to the traffic of the
public as well as the vehicles, as per the contention of. the petitioner. However, the petitioner is very much concerned about the issuing of licence
to road side shops without roofs to the small traders by stating that it would cause more difficulties to the free flow of traffic as well as to the public.
Kanyakumari Town Panchayat has published a Notification in Tamil Daily ""Dinakaran"" issue dated 04.11.2007 mentioning that for putting up of
shops without roofing for a period of 60 days during November and December, 2007 and. January, 2008 tenders are being called for, The
measurement for each shop is 6 ft. x 4 ft., totalling 24 sq. ft. which would be temporary in nature. It goes without saying that after the stipulated
period of 60 days, shops would be lifted by the persons concerned. For the above said notification, the said Town Panchayat has also passed a
Resolution on 29.10.2007.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that both the said. streets in Kanyakumari, namely Amman Sannadhi Street and
Beach Road, are heavily congested and if the temporary shops are permitted to run, it would further shrink the width of the road by 9 ft. which
would cause much obstacles to the free flow of traffic, including vehicles. He also states that the proposal on the part of the Town Panchayat will
lead to so many public disturbances and there may be public agitation and objections also. In fact, in the typed-set of papers, copy of a news
report, published on 13.11.2007 in Tamil Daily ""Dinakaran"" is enclosed, which shows that it is the routine practice of the Kanyakumari Town
Panchayat to lease out temporary shops numbering 240 during this season and there was a proposal to conduct auction for this purpose but,
however, due to the objection raised by the permanent shop owners, the above said action was postponed indefinitely.
As far as the proposal of the lst respondent is concerned, it has been made definite and clear that the shops would be run by the tiny traders
only along the road margins and it is usual practice also for a long period. It is also mentioned in the tender notification that the shops would not
have any roof so as to make hindrance to the traffic. The period to be permitted for running the shops is only 60 days. The small traders who are
eking out their livelihood in the locality would get benefited only during this season and during the other months in the year they may have to take
some other avocation, which may not be remunerative. Futher, the local body, namely the 1st respondent, would get its income augmented for its
developmental schemes, so as to render more facilities to its residents and the tourists as well. In other words, the proposal would generate income
in sizable manner which would be more beneficial to the 1st respondent for public purpose.
As far as the claim and request of the petitioner is concerned, his only contention is that free flow of traffic will get affected and it would also
cause health hazards. If any health hazard is perceived, everybody is entitled to represent before the 1st respondent to maintain good environment
in the area. As far as the hindrance to the free flow of traffic is concerned, even in the affidavit it has been mentioned that during the festival seasons
plying of vehicles is banned in the above said two streets. The parking of vehicles at a particular point will not harm the tourists. They may very well
have access to the temple as well as other picnic spots through the above said two streets by walk. It is common knowledge that whenever a
tourist visits a place, there may be some desire his part to purchase articles peculiar to that place in memory of his visit there. Banning the running
of shops on the road margins may also curtail the wishes of tourists who have chosen to visit the particular tourist spot.
Viewing from any angle, we are of the considered view that this litigation is only a ''private interest litigation'' and if the prayer of the petitioner is
granted, it will not serve any purpose, but on the contrary, it would cause much hardship to tiny traders who are eking out their livelihood with odd
circumstances in their life and it would also cause monetary loss to the local body, namely 1st respondent Town Panchayat.
When a petition is filed in public interest and particularly by a member of the legal profession, it would be filed with all seriousness and after
ascertaining necessary materials when the subject taken. It is well settled principle 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. In a recent decision of the Hon''ble supreme Court of India reported in 2007
(2) ACJ 162 - Neetu v. state of Punjab, it has been held as follows:
...The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations 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 rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs. (See also Dattaraj Nathuji
Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, ).
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, since the request of the petitioner will not serve any purpose to the public, we are constrained
to impose exemplary costs of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) to be paid by the petitioner to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, functioning
in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
with the above said observation and direction, the writ petition is dismissed connected M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2007 is also dismissed.