P.Seshadri vs S.Mangati Gopal Reddy & Ors

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2688 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15904 of 2010)

P. Seshadri ... Appellant

VERSUS

S. Mangati Gopal Reddy & Ors. ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the

judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad rendered in Writ Petition No. 24124 of

2009 dated 28th April, 2010 whereby the High Court

set aside the extension granted to the appellant as

officer on Special Duty in the establishment of

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (hereinafter referred

to as "the Temple") till 1st August, 2011.

2 3. The aforesaid order has been passed in a writ petition

styled as a public interest litigation by S.

Mangati Gopal Reddy (hereinafter referred to as

"respondent No.1"). Respondent No. 1 claims to be an

agriculturist and a staunch devotee of Lord

Venkateswara since his childhood. In Paragraph 2 of

the affidavit in support of the writ petition, respondent

No.1, in order to establish his locus standi to file the

public interest litigation stated as under:-

"I am an Agriculturist. I am a staunch devotee

of Lord Venkateswara since my childhood. I

regularly visit the temple to offer my prayers to

God. I also have donated to the temple as per

my capacity. I am a citizen of this country and

a Hindu by religion. I am a native and a

resident of Tirupathi. I have come to know

certain misdeeds, discrepancies,

Mismanagement of the T.T.D. Funds by some

vested interests. As a citizen of India and also

as a staunch devotee of Lord Venkateswara, it

is my bounden duty to bring the said facts,

which have come to my knowledge, to the

notice of this Honourable Court for appropriate

directions of this Honourble Court. I also

submit that I have no personal interest in filing

the above writ affidavit nor I have any enmity

with the persons whose details are furnished

hereunder and against the persons certain

3

directions are sought in this Writ Petition.

This Writ Petition is being filed in the larger

interest of the public."

4. He has further pleaded that the Temple was

established as a result of Tirumala Tirupathi

Devasthanam Act, 1932 (in short `TTD Act'). The

aforesaid Act was followed in 1933 by a special Act in

1951 whereby the administration of the Temple was

under the control of the Andhra Pradesh Government.

According to respondent No.1, since the enactment of

the Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions Act,

1989, the management and administration vests in the

Board called "TTD Board" constituted under Section

96 of the aforesaid Act.

5. It was further the case of the respondent that the

management and administration of the Temple is

controlled by the statutory provisions of the 1989 Act

and the rules made thereunder. However, the

responsible officers of the TTD Board have acted in

4

violation of the rules framed under the aforesaid Act.

He further stated that certain discrepancies and

misdeeds have been brought to the notice of the

Andhra Pradesh High Court by way of various writ

petitions. The writ petition was filed to bring to the

notice of the Court various misappropriations and

embezzlement of funds. There is an ongoing

controversy with regard to embezzlement of funds and,

in particular, loss of 300 gold dollars each weighing 5

gms. since August, 2008. It was further the case of

the respondent that the actions of the appellant have

been doubted in the case of missing gold dollars as he

was Bokkasam Incharge and Parpathedar of the

Temple. His name was primarily mentioned in the

reports of two IPS officers, who had conducted two

separate vigilance reports. These reports categorically

recommended that the appellant should not be

continued in office. In spite of such recommendations

of the vigilance officer, the appellant had been

continued in service.

5 6. According to respondent No.1, the appellant retired on

31st July, 2006. Since then, he has been given five

years extension in the Temple. According to the

respondent, the services of the appellant have been

extended for ulterior motives. Respondent makes a

grievance that the services of the appellant have been

extended as if there is no other suitable person in the

Temple or elsewhere to perform the duties of the

appellant. The respondent further alleges that the

services of the appellant were extended on a number of

occasions, vide order, viz; No. Roc No.

BG/10949/2006 dated 31st July, 2006 for a period of

two years, Roc No. BG/10949/2007 dated 5th

August 2008, for a period of two years from 2nd

August, 2007 to 1st August, 2009 and Roc No.

P1/308/Sri TT/ml/2009 dated 1st August,

2009 for a further period of two years i.e. from 2nd

August, 2009 to 1st August, 2011.

6 7. The respondent claimed that these extensions were

wholly illegal and arbitrary exercise of power by the

TTD Board. These allegations were made relying on

the recommendations made by B.V. Ramana Kumar,

IPS, the then Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. In

his report dated 28th July, 2008 initiation of

disciplinary action for major penalty has been

recommended against the appellant. This report was

deliberately ignored by the TTD Board and the

appellant continued to enjoy the patronage of the

Board.

8. The writ petition came up for hearing before the High

Court on 9th November, 2009. Whilst issuing notice in

the writ petition, the High Court made an interim

order which was as follows:-

" ............And it is further ordered that there

shall be interim suspension of the proceedings

bearing Roc. No. P1/308/Sri/TT/Tml/2009,

dated 01-08-2009 of the Tirumala Tirupathi

Devasthanams, Tirupathi, which was issued in

pursuance of Resolution No. 178 dated:

7

28.07.2009 of the TTD Board, extending the

service of Sri P. Seshadri (retired employee) i.e.

Respondent No.4 from 02-08-2009 to

01-08-2011."

9. This order was challenged by the appellant in SLP

(C) No.30517 of 2009. This Court stayed the operation

of the aforesaid order passed by the High Court. On

4th December, 2009, this Court disposed of the special

leave petition with the following order:-

"Heard both sides.

The petitioner has challenged the ad-interim

order passed by the High Court of Judicature

of A.P. whereby extension of service of the

petitioner was terminated. When the matter

was mentioned before this Court on

24.11.2009, we had granted stay of the

impugned order passed by the High Court. As

it is a service matter, the High Court is

requested to dispose of the petition pending

before it at an early date at least within a

period of two months. Till such time, the order

passed by this Court on 24.11.2009 will be in

operation.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of

accordingly."

8

10. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the High Court heard

the writ petition and allowed the same by its order

dated 28th April, 2010 in the following terms:-

"Sri P. Seshadri--respondent 4, Parpathyadar

in the establishment of the Tirumala Tirupathi

Devasthanams--respondent 3 retired on

superannuation on 31.07.2006. He was

accorded extension in three spells and the last

one has the effect of extending his service as

Officer on Special Duty till 01.08.2011 which

has become subject matter of this public

interest litigation. Rule 13 of the Tirumala

Tirupathi Devasthanams Employees Service

Rules, 1989 reads thus:

"The person or persons appointed in

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams

on re-employment basis after

superannuation shall in no case be

continued beyond the completion of

the age of sixty years."

Admittedly, respondent 4 has crossed the age

of sixty years. On that count the learned

counsel for respondent 4--beneficiary of the

order has not joined issue. That being so,

prohibition in the rule supra against his

continuation is manifest. Situated thus he

cannot be continued anymore. We direct

respondent 3 accordingly. Settled"

11.It is this order which is challenged by the appellant in

the present appeal.

9 12.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

13. Mr. Narsimha submits that the writ petition ought to

have been dismissed at the threshold by the High

Court and controversy pertaining to a service matter

which could not be filed in a writ petition styled as a

public interest litigation. In support of the

submission, the learned counsel relied on the following

judgments of this Court:- Dr .

Duryodhan Sahu and

Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra1, Gurpal Singh Vs.

Stat e of Punjab and Ors.2 , Neetu Vs. State of Punjab

& Ors.3 and Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of

Kerala & Ors.4 He further submitted that in any

event, the petition was not filed by respondent No.1

bonafide. It has been filed at the behest of some

persons, who are the hidden forces pursuing the writ

petition. Last but not the least, it is the submission of

1 (1998) 7 SCC 273

2 (2005) 5 SCC 136

3 (2007) 10 SCC 614

4 (2008) 3 SCC 542

10

Mr. Narsimha that the High Court judgment deserves

to be set aside on the short ground that it is based on

a complete misinterpretation of the Tirumala Tirupathi

Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989.

According to the learned senior counsel, the aforesaid

rules would not be applicable to the petitioner as his

service has been extended only on contractual basis.

Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, counsel for the Temple,

respondent No.4 has supported the submissions made

by Mr. Narsimha. He has also relied on the judgment

of Neetu's case (supra).

14. Mr. Atul Pandey, appearing for respondent No.1

submitted that the services of the appellant had been

extended arbitrarily for extraneous consideration. The

Board is going out of the way to protect the appellant,

who is involved in serious embezzlement of Temple

property. He submits that the extensions have been

given, in spite of the recommendations made by the

11

Chief Vigilance and security officer, B.V. Ramana

Kumar, IPS.

15.We have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel. In our opinion, it is not at all

necessary to make any observations with regard to the

ongoing controversy between different groups/parties

with regard to the management of the affairs of the

Temple. It is also not necessary to make any

observations with regard to the involvement or

otherwise of the appellant in any activities which may

invite either adverse comments or disciplinary actions.

From the pleadings of the parties, it appears to us that

there is a serious dispute with regard to the

management and the administration of the affairs of

the Temple. Admittedly, separate proceedings are

pending in different Courts of competent jurisdiction

with regard to those issues. In our opinion, those

proceedings cannot be confused or merged with the

12

subject matter of the writ petition filed by the

respondent No.1.

16. It is not disputed that the appellant was in the service

of the Temple for many years. He retired from the

service of the Temple on 31st July, 2006. It appears

from the records that Board of Trustees in its

Resolution No.151 dated 5th/6th May, 2006 resolved to

utilize the services of the appellant on contract basis

for a period of two years initially. An order to that

effect was duly passed by the Board on 31st July,

2006. It appears that subsequent Resolution No.263

was passed on 25th July, 2007, giving further

extension to the appellant for a period of two years

from 2nd August, 2007 to 1st August, 2009.

Again, the services of the appellant have been

extended for a period of two years through Resolution

No.178 dated 28th July, 2009. The reason for

continuing the services of the appellant are stated in

the Resolution itself, which are as under:-

13 1. With his vast experience and profound

knowledge in the day to day affairs in Sri.

Tirumala Temple, particularly during festive

and special occasion, his services are very

much required for successful and timely

conduct of fairs and festivals.

2. He is well versed with the procedures of

various sevas that are being performed in

Sri. Tirumala Temple.

3. His services are vastly utilized during

Kalyanamasthu programs organized

throughout the country. He could able to

conduct the programs successfully to keep

up the gallery of the institution.

4. Apart from all his role in extending honours

to various Matadhipathies/Peetadhipathies

visiting Srivari Temple is commendable and

he is maintaining a good rapport with all

the Swamijis, Matadhipathies and

Peetadhipathies which is much essential for

the religious institutions like TTD.

5. Besides, he is available round the clock for

all the 365 days in a year for the

administration to organize various programs

like Bhajagovindam, Kalyanam being

conducted outside and other religious

activities."

17. Pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution, the Board

passed a formal order on 1st August, 2009 extending

14

the services of the appellant till 1st August, 2011 on

contract basis on payment of monthly remuneration at

last pay drawn. The High Court has nullified the

Resolution dated 21st July, 2009 and the

consequential order dated 1st August, 2009 holding the

same to be contrary to Rule 13 of the 1989 rules.

Undoubtedly, Rule 13 provides that re-employment of

any employee after superannuation shall in no case be

beyond the completion of age of 60 years. The High

Court, however, failed to notice that the 1989 Rules

have no application to engagements made on contract

basis or when services of government servants or

employees of other organizations are utilized on

deputation. Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules provides as

under:-

"2. They shall apply to every employee of

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams except to

the officers or staff taken on contract basis

and officers or staff taken on deputation from

the Government or other organization."

15

18. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule leaves no manner of

doubt that the aforesaid Rules apply to every employee

"except to the officers or staff taken on contract basis

and officers or staff taken on deputation from the

Government or other organizations". In other words,

officers or staff who are appointed on contract basis or

are taken on deputation from the Government or other

organizations form a separate class and are not

covered by the aforesaid Rules. The High Court, in our

opinion, was in error, in relying on Rule 13 to nullify

the appointment of the appellant.

19. The High Court has committed a serious error in

permitting respondent No.1 to pursue the writ petition as

a public interest litigation. The parameters within which

Public Interest Litigation can be entertained by this Court

and the High Court, have been laid down and reiterated

by this Court in a series of cases. By now it ought to be

plain and obvious that this Court does not approve of an

approach that would encourage petitions filed for

16

achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and

reckless allegations made by individuals, i.e., busybodies;

having little or no interest in the proceedings. The

credentials, the motive and the objective of the petitioner

have to be apparently and patently aboveboard.

Otherwise the petition is liable to be dismissed at the

threshold.

20. The High Court ought to have satisfied itself with

regard to the credentials of respondent No.1 before

entertaining the writ petition, styled as public interest

litigation. Even a cursory perusal of Paragraph 2 of the

affidavit filed in the High Court by the respondent No.1

would clearly show that the respondent No.1 has no

special concern with the extension granted to the

appellant. Respondent No.1 had merely pleaded that he

moved the writ petition as he is a devotee of Lord

Venkateswara. He is an agriculturist by profession. The

appellant has failed to supply any specific particulars as

to how he is in possession of any special information.

17 The controversy with regard to the management and

administration of the Temple's properties and funds have

been deliberately mixed up with the extension granted to

the appellant by the TTD Board. It is an admitted

position that different proceedings are pending with

regard to the management controversy of the Temple

Trust. The aforesaid controversy had no relevance to the

extension granted to the appellant. The writ petition

seems to have been actuated by some disgruntled

elements. He has also failed to show as to how and in

what manner he represents the public interest.

21. This Court in the case of (DR .) B . Singh Vs. Union

of India & Ors.5 quoted with approval the definition of

public interest as stated in the report of Public Interest

Law, USA, 1976 by the council for Public Interest Law set

up by the Ford foundation in USA. In the aforesaid

report, the definition of public interest is given as under:-

5 (2004) 3 SCC 363

18

`Public interest law is the name that has

recently been given to efforts which provide

legal representation to previously

unrepresented groups and interests. Such

efforts have been undertaken in the

recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal

services fails to provide such services to

significant segments of the population and to

significant interests. Such groups and

interests include the proper environmentalists,

consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and

others.'

22. This Court in the case of Neetu Vs. State of Punjab

(Supra) emphasized the need to ensure that public

interest litigation is not misused to unleash a private

vendetta against any particular person. In Paragraph

7, it is observed as follows:-

"When a particular person is the object and

target of a petition styled as PIL, the court has

to be careful to see whether the attack in the

guise of public interest is really intended to

unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or

some other mala fide object."

23. Similar observations had been made by this Court in

the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West

Bengal.

6 We may reiterate here the observations

made in Paragraph 12 herein, which are as follows:-

6 (2004) 3 SCC 349

19

"Public interest litigation is a weapon which

has to be used with great care and

circumspection and the judiciary has to be

extremely careful to see that behind the

beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private

malice, vested interest and/or publicity-

seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an

effective weapon in the armory of law for

delivering social justice to citizens. The

attractive brand name of public interest

litigation should not be used for suspicious

products of mischief. It should be aimed at

redressal of genuine public wrong or public

injury and not publicity-oriented or founded

on personal vendetta. As indicated above,

court must be careful to see that a body of

persons or a member of the public, who

approaches the court is acting bona fide and

not for personal gain or private motive or

political motivation or other oblique

consideration. The court must not allow its

process to be abused for oblique

considerations. Some persons with vested

interest indulge in the pastime of meddling

with judicial process either by force of habit or

from improper motives. Often they are

actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap

popularity. The petitions of such busybodies

deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the

threshold, and in appropriate cases, with

exemplary costs."

24. This Court again in the case of Divine Retreat

Centre (Supra) reiterated that public interest

litigation can only be entertained at the instance of

bonafide litigants. It cannot be permitted to be used

20

by unscrupulous litigants to disguise personal or

individual grievances as public interest litigations.

The facts placed on record in the present proceeding

would clearly indicate that the appellant has not come

to Court with clean hands. He has failed to establish

his credential for moving the writ petition as public

interest litigation. In our opinion, the High Court has

failed to examine the matter in its correct perspective.

The writ petition was undoubtedly moved by motives

other than what was stated in the writ petition. A

perusal of the affidavit in support of the writ petition

would clearly show that the writ petition had been

filed by the petitioner at the instance of some other

persons who are hiding behind the veil. In paragraph

8 of the affidavit, respondent No. 1 states:

"Sri P. Seshadri who retired on 31.7.2006, has

been given 5 years extension in the TTD. It is

ununderstandable whether there is no other

suitable person in the T.T.D. or elsewhere to

perform the duties of Sri. P. Seshadri which he

was doing or whether he is so indispensable

that he should be given extension for 5 years.

The T.T.D. has not bothered to fill up the said

21

post of Par Pathedar till now, and have chosen

to extend the services of Sri P.Seshadri again

and again, vide Board's proceedings

roc.No.BG/10949/2006 dated 31.7.2006."

In view of the above, we are unable to accept that the

petitioner is the actual moving spirit behind the writ

petition.

25. In the case of Gurpal Singh (Supra), this Court again

emphasized that the Court must not allow its process

to be abused for oblique considerations by masked

phantoms who monitor at times from behind.

26.Respondent No.1 had failed to satisfy any of the

criteria which would have enabled him to move the

High Court by way of a public interest litigation. A

pure and simple service matter has been deliberately

disguised as a public interest litigation at the instance

of some disgruntled employees who were perhaps

22

hopeful of occupying the seat presently occupied by

the appellant.

27. The High Court failed to notice that the writ petition

was not maintainable for a variety of reasons. As

noticed earlier, the High Court did not even care to

examine all the provisions of 1989 rules before

concluding that the appointment of the respondent

was contrary to Rule 13. The respondent had raised

numerous preliminary objectives with regard to the

maintainability of the writ petition, in particular, at

the instance of the respondent No.1. The High Court,

in our opinion, committed a serious error in not

analyzing all the relevant provisions of the 1989

Rules, before concluding that the extension in the

service granted to the appellant was contrary to Rule

13. This Court has, on numerous occasions,

emphasised the importance of recording reasons by

the High Court in support of the orders passed in

exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article

23

226 of the Constitution of India. Necessity for

recording reasons is the fundamental to the

administration of justice. The recorded reasons would

enable the parties to the litigation to know the factors

which weighed with the court in determining the lis

between the parties. This Court in the case of

Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf Vs. New Education

Institute & Ors.7 clearly indicated the bare essentials

of an order passed by the High Court while disposing

of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. In paragraph 14, it is observed as follows :-

"14. It is a cardinal principle of rule of law

which governs our policy that the court

including Writ Court is required to record

reasons while disposing of a writ petition in

order to enable the litigants more particularly

the aggrieved party to know the reasons which

weighed with the mind of the court in

determining the questions of facts and law

raised in the writ petition or in the action

brought. This is imperative for the fair and

equitable administration of justice. More so

when there is a statutory provision for appeal

to the higher court in the hierarchy of courts

in order to enable the superior court or the

appellate court to know or to be apprised of

the reasons which impelled the court to pass

7 1986 (4) SCC 31

24

the order in question. This recording of

reasons in deciding cases or applications

affecting rights of parties is also a mandatory

requirement to be fulfilled in consonance with

the principles of natural justice. It is no

answer at all to this legal position that for the

purpose of expeditious disposal of cases a

laconic order like "dismissed" or `rejected' will

be made without passing a reasoned order or a

speaking order. It is not, however, necessary

that the order disposing of a writ petition or of

a cause must be a lengthy one recording in

detail all the reasons that played in the mind

of the court in coming to the decision. What is

imperative is that the order must in a nutshell

record the relevant reasons which were taken

into consideration by the court in coming to its

final conclusions and in disposing of the

petition or the cause by making the order,

thereby enabling both the party seeking justice

as well as the superior court where an appeal

lies to know the mind of the court as well as

the reasons for its finding on questions of law

and facts in deciding the said petition or

cause. In other words fair play and justice

demands that justice must not only be done

but must seem to have been done."

The order passed by the High Court does not satisfy the

bare minimum requirements as indicated above. In view

of the above, we have no option but to allow the appeal

and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High

Court.

25 28. Before parting, we may notice here that under the

Resolution No. 178 dated 28th July, 2007 services of

the appellant have been extended upto 1st August,

2011. We are informed by Mr. Narsimha that his

services were discontinued immediately upon the

judgment having been passed by the High Court on

28th April, 2010. Consequently, the appellant has

been denied the full benefit under the Resolution and

the Order dated 1st August, 2009. Since the

aforesaid benefit has been denied to the appellant

without any fault on his part, we direct the Board to

consider whether the appellant ought to be granted

further extension to compensate for the loss of service

since 28th April, 2010.

29.With these observations, the appeal is allowed and the

impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.

26 ...................................J.

[B.Sudershan Reddy]

...................................J.

[Surinder Singh Nijjar]

New Delhi;

March 29, 2011.