Petitioner fined Rs 10,000 for frivolous PIL

First bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundaresan, while holding that the petition is not maintainable as it pertains to a service dispute, said “We find alleged public interest matters coming up daily, which are either publicity endeavours or motivated pleas. The Court’s precious time is wasted on this kind of PILs. Such wastage of court time must invite appropriate costs.” 

As per the case, the petitioner M Shankar, an agriculturist, saw the nurses’ agitation resulting in a road blockade. On enquiry, he found that they were disappointed from the transfer counselling held by the Department of Medical Education on February 3, 2016, in violation of the guidelines. So, Shankar, citing a newspaper article, moved the court stating that such agitations caused severe traffic problems, especially in Anna Salai. 

In fact, at the very instance the case was filed, the registry had raised an objection about the maintainability of the plea based on the fact that it’s a service dispute and the same cannot be raised as a PIL. Also, at the hearing stage, when the bench informed the petitioner’s counsel about how such a petition would be maintainable, he had contended that this is not a service dispute, but a case of violation of law. He had also submitted that guidelines laid by the Supreme Court for PIL does not forbid such a petition. 

However, the bench on directing the petitioner to deposit Rs 10, 000 with the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, said “We have no doubt that the issue pertaining to the implementation of the GO is nothing but service dispute between the authorities and the agitating nurses. The petitioner knows nothing about this subject. The petitioner was a passer-by and has reproduced only a newspaper report. Despite cautioning the petitioner’s counsel that such a petition is not maintainable, the council persisted before us.”