S. SUKUMAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation (PIL)) is filed to seek a direction to nominate a retired Judge of this Court to investigate the irregularities and biased action of the fourth respondent in conducting the election for the Management Committees of Water Users Association in Dharapuram region.

(2.) The petitioner is said to be appointed as Tiruppur District Vice-President of BJP, but has not participated in the election, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He is said to be affected by the election being an agriculturist and the nomination of the petitioner's father for the post of President of Upparu Dam-Thoppampatti Village Water Users Association, was rejected by the fourth respondent. The pleadings made in the Writ Petition thus demonstrate that, apart from showing the petitioner's own political acts, it has been filed to espouse the cause of the petitioner's own father and therefore, it cannot be termed to be a PIL, but is a Personal Interest Litigation. Instead of filing or taking course to challenge the election by the petitioner's father, the PIL has been filed to seek a direction for investigation and enquiry by a retired Judge of this Court, without showing as to under what provision such a direction can be issued. This Court has seen that in many cases, a prayer has been made to hold enquiry and investigation by a retired Judge of this Court, owing to the status held by them. The Constitutional Authority cannot be brought down to the status of the nature prayed for by the petitioner on their retirement. It is otherwise not explained as to why the election or the result of the election therein, could not be challenged by the petitioner's father if he is aggrieved by it. All the factual aspects can be determined which otherwise cannot be determined while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) A direction to cause enquiry or investigation by a retired Judge of this Court, cannot be given without first drawing to the conclusion that the matter needs such serious examination and it can be only after modification of facts which would require entering into appreciation of facts, going beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.