VAIRAESWARAN Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMING himself to be a pro bono litigant, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the Commissioner, Kodaikkanal Municipality, Kodaikkanal, the 3rd respondent herein, to forthwith cancel the licences of Beauty Parlours/Ayurvedic Massage Centres, located in Kodaikkanal Town and take necessary action against them, on the basis of the representation, dated 07.05.2015, given by the petitioner.

(2.) IN the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has alleged that some persons in Kodaikkanal Town, by playing fraud in their business, are damaging the reputation and fame of the town. Some parlours are running in the name of Beauty Parlours/Ayurvedic Massage Centres, by obtaining bogus certificates and licence from Kodaikkanl Municipality, the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, under the guise of running Beauty Parlour Business, persons working in those centres are waylaying the tourists and insisting them to visit the parlours, and, instead of regular beauty parlour business, they are involved in illegal acts of prostitution and serving alcohol. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though, on complaints, so many criminal cases are registered, no further action is taken. Hence, he is constrained to approach this Court with this writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) FURTHER , it is well settled, in a catena of decisions, that public interest litigation should contain all the particulars with material documents to substantiate the averments made in the supporting affidavit and Court's time is valuable. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalyaneshwari Vs Union of India, reported in : (2011) 3 SCC 287, wherein it has been held as follows: