Madras High Court Imposes 1 Lakh Cost On Litigant Filing & Withdrawing Claims Based On State's "Political Climate"

Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that from the conduct of the Petitioner, it was clear that he would use this Court by filing Writ Petitions whenever the political climate was not in his favour and withdraw the same once it turns in his favour. It remarked as under:

A litigant must understand that Court proceedings are to be taken seriously and the rights have to be agitated sincerely before a Court. The Court will come to the aid of only such litigants. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he was coming to this Court as if it was an amusement park and he got in and got out as per his own whims and fancies. The petitioner has to necessarily face the consequences for such a conduct.

Background

When the South Asian Federation (SAF) games were conducted in Chennai in 1995, the government decided to use it as a visible economic proposition by commercialisation of the events involving private sector. A tender was floated and M/s. Times TV, was declared as the highest bidder and they started spending money on the advertisements. The petitioner entered the scene and quoted an amount of Rs.2 Crores which he later increased to Rs.3 Crores. G.O. was passed on 9.12.1995 in favour of the petitioner and a Memorandum of Understanding was also entered into with the petitioner.

After the SAF games ended, the petitioner made a request on 3.2.1996 seeking for the waiver of a sum of Rs.2 Crores and the petitioner came forward to remit only a sum of Rs.1 Crore. On 15.4.1996, the petitioner submitted a breakup of the expenditure and receipts. In this letter, there were absolutely no details or bills attached to substantiate the claim made for the expenditure incurred by the petitioner. Subsequently a G.O.Ms.No.324, dated 6.5.1996 was issued by granting waiver to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.2 Crores. This was in light of his proximity with the Government which was in the helm of affairs.

Interestingly, when the subsequent government came into power, it observed that the above GO was issued in spite of objections from the finance department and in a hurried manner. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing registered an FIR against all involved and started a criminal case.

Meanwhile, the Government, while reconsidering the GO, issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner. Though he challenged the same he was directed by the court to give a reply to the show cause. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the issued G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 12.10.2000 cancelling G.O.Ms No.324, dated 6.5.1996.

The court opined that the petitioner challenged this impugned GO on multiples occasions and withdrew them whenever the political situation in the country was in his favour. While withdrawing these petitions challenging the impugned GO, the reason given by the petitioner was that he intended to make representations before the government. The government considered the representation of the petitioner, rejected it, and initiated revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of Rs. 2 crore. Hence, the present petition was filed by the petitioner challenging both the impugned GO and initiation of revenue recovery proceedings.

The petitioner submitted that the G.O was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He contended that there was no ground to sustain the impugned G.O after filing of the "Further Action Dropped" Report in the criminal case. He submitted that impugned G.O. suffers from lack of jurisdiction since the dispute between the petitioner and the Government should have been decided by a different body and the Government should not have decided its own case. He also submitted that since he was made to act on the earlier GO, the impugned GO was vitiated by principles of estoppel. He contended that the GO was vitiated by malafides and the materials relied upon by the State were also not disclosed to the petitioner.

The respondents submitted that the petition was not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier Writ Petitions and hence, the present Writ Petitions are hit by the principles of res judicata.

The court considered the submissions of the petitioner. With respect to the plea that the GO was passed in violation to the principles of natural justice, the court opined that the same was unsustainable. The petitioner was given due notice, to which he replied. Every ground was considered in detail and only thereafter the GO was passed.

With respect to the plea of lack of jurisdiction, the court observed that it was always left open to a Government to correct its mistakes when a palpable illegality is brought to its notice. Since there was apparent favouritism existed from the beginning which also caused a loss of Rs.2 Crores to the State exchequer, the Government was within it's power and jurisdiction to issue GO. Since the earlier GO was a favour done for the petitioners, the principle of estoppel would not apply to the present case.

The court was not satisfied with the contention of malafide raised by the Petitioner. The court remarked that sufficient grounds existed for cancellation of the GO. The court observed that it was a trend to raise the plea of malafide whenever a subsequent government initiated actions.

"If any person chooses to conduct his business with an apparent political identity, it has its own consequences. With such a political identity, a routine ground that is always raised is mala fides when action is initiated by the subsequent Government. Mala fides is a ground which has to be pleaded and proved and it is not a matter of assumption. The petitioner has not made out a case for mala fides and G.O.Ms.No.45 gives solid reasons as to why the earlier G.O. was cancelled and it has to be sustained on its own merits."

The court further observed that the plea of non payment of advertisement charges should have been prosecuted by the Petitioner through a Civil Suit. "The petitioner took a calculated risk and withdrew the Civil Suit and hence he has to blame only himself for the situation in which he is placed." the court recorded.

It imposed a cost of Rs.1 Lakh to be deposited to the Chief Justice Relief Fund within a period of four weeks.

Case Title: V.Krishnamurthy v. The State of TN and others

Case No: W.P.Nos.19342, 19343 and 19344 of 2013

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 289

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for. M/s G.R.Associates