SHELSON ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be espousing the cause of the unemployed youth of the Vypeen Island, situated in the State of Kerala. The petitioner's concern seems to be in the establishment of a project by the respondents 8 and 9, a private company and an individual, admittedly not coming within the definition of "State" under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. The project is to come up in the reclaimed land of 27 acres allegedly handed over by the Government of Kerala and the Cochin Port Trust to the said respondents. Such project, if implemented, according to the petitioner, would generate employment, particularly to the unemployed youth in the Vypeen Island and generally to the unemployed youth of the State of Kerala. The petitioner relies on Art. 16 and Art. 21 of the Constitution of India to advance his case. The petitioner contends that the right to employment is guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. But a reading of the said Article would clearly indicate that it deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Immediately we notice that the petitioner seeks implementation of a project by a private individual and a Private Limited Company on the ground that such project would generate employment to the youth of Kerala. Obviously, any employment generated thereon would not be public employment as understood in legal parlance or specifically by Art. 16. Under the guise of generation of employment, that too in the private sector, the petitioner seeks to force our hand in interfering with the tender entered into by the State and its instrumentalities with private parties.

(2.) We are often faced with the situation of public interest litigation challenging action of the State in awarding tenders, etc., and getting a dismissal; pre-empting genuine litigations and litigants from challenging an illegal or arbitrary action. As in the instant case, the tender awarded by the State to the private party; as we understand from the frugal material provided, would be on specified conditions, which the State or the awardee; is entitled to enforce or resile from. The present litigation, we apprehend, is aimed at stultifying such enforcement of conditions spelt out in the tender and the terms of the award.

(3.) The petitioner would rely on tender notifications published in newspapers and some controversies between the awarder and the awardee, as disclosed, again, from newspaper reports, to move this Court seeking positive directions for implementation of the project; all with the avowed object of generating employment. The collective right of gaining employment, if the project is implemented, is merely illusory and in any event cannot be enforced. The implementation itself is dependent upon various factors, not; at least for the present, in the realm of this Court. The ballooning jurisdiction in public interest litigations and why it should not be allowed to burst was lucidly stated in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2000 10 SCC 664 :