G.Sugumaran v. The Government of Puducherry

7. N.Govindasamy, President, Chamber De Commerce, registeredunder the Societies Registration Act, Reg. No.105/2000, represented by itsGeneral Secretary, Rue Suffren, Puducherry 605 001.8. A.Balasubramaniyan, General Secretary, Chamber De Commerce, registeredunder the Societies Registration Act, Reg. No.105/2000, rep. By itsGeneral Secretary, Rue Suffren, Puducherry 605 001.RespondentsWrit petition is filed for issuance of writ of declarationdeclaring that the certificate of registration issued by the fourthrespondent dated 20.03.2000 registering the 6th respondent society asnull and void and consequently direct the first respondent to conductelections to the fifth respondent body and restore the property of the5th respondent from 6th respondent and to initiate criminal and civilaction against the 7th and 8th respondents.For petitioner:Ms.D.GeethaFor respondents 1 to 3:Mr.T.R.Rajaraman,Senior Counsel, on behalf ofGovernment of PuducherryFor respondents 6 to 8:Mr.G.Masilamani,Senior Counsel, forMr.Manisundar GopalORDERK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.The writ petition is filed as a pro bono publico. Thepetitioner, claiming himself as the Secretary of the Federation forPeople's Rights, Puducherry, has filed this writ petition for issuanceof writ of declaration to declare that the certificate of registrationissued by the fourth respondent – Registrar of Companies, Puducherry,Ministry of Company Affairs dated 20.03.2000 registering the 6threspondent society as null and void and consequently direct the firstrespondent to conduct elections to the fifth respondent body andrestore the property of the 5th respondent from 6th respondent and toinitiate criminal and civil action against the 7th and 8th respondents.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the followingfactual basis:The Chamber of Commerce of Pondicherry had been re-organised by adecree dated 07.03.1914, which gave to it the civil personality. As https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ certain difficulties have arisen in the application of the text of thedecree, mainly about the election of the members to the consularassembly and its administration, the President of French republic bydecree dated 06.07.1934 enacted the Chamber of Commerce of Pondicherryas an organ of industrial and commercial interest of FrenchSettlements in India. Article 2 of the decree provided that themembers of Chamber of commerce were to be elected by an electoral bodyformed by electors of French Nationality having atleast 21 years ofage and being licensed traders, managers of commercial or industrialLimited of French companies, etc. All the electors should have theirdomicile in the jurisdiction of the chamber of commerce since twoyears atleast. Article 3 provided for the disqualification of members,preparation of electoral rolls and other events for the administrationand election of office bearers of the Chamber of Commerce. After theestablishment of the fifth respondent, the Chamber of commerce, itpurchased 12 shops and a vacant site over an area of 1.9 hectares nearthe Puduchery port on 06.07.1908 and also purchased building at doorNo.1, Suffren Street on 19.06.1916, out of the public money from thefunds of the administration of Puducherry. The funds were divertedfrom the collection of 'patante', the tax, collected by the thenContribution Department, now the Revenue Department. Thus, theproperty purchased by the Chamber of Commerce are the propertiesbelonging to the Government of Puducherry. After independence andcoming into force of the Constitution of India, the Ministry ofExternal Affairs passed an order called "the Pondicherry Chamber ofCommerce Constitution (Amendment) Order, 1958". It came into force on01.01.1958 by which Article 2 of the French Decree dated 06.07.1934was amended by incorporating "French or Indian Nationale" in the placeof "French Nationale" to become the member of the Chamber of Commerce.Further, the Legislative Assembly of the Pondicherry Government haspassed an Act called the Pondicherry Chamber of Commerce Constitution(Amendment) Act, 1966, by which Article 18 of the decree dated06.07.1934 has been amended to the effect that the chamber of commerceshall elect from among the members – a President, Vice President, Asecretary and a Treasurer and in Article 2 of the said decree for theword 'nomination' the word 'election' had been substituted. On17.07.1966, the Lieutenant Governor of Pondicherry notified theelection of Members to the Chamber of Commerce. The electoral listhas been published in the Gazette No.49 of the 03.12.1968. Theelection of the office bearers was held in the presence of Mayor ofPondicherry, as required by the decree of 1934 and eight members wereelected including respondents 7 and 8. Their tenure came to an end inthe year 1975 as the tenure was 6 years under Article 15 of thedecree. Respondents 7 and 8 were elected as members in the year 1969.Even after the expiry of the tenure, respondents 7 and 8 continued tomanage the affairs of the 5th respondent. In the capacity of electedmembers, they indulged in mismanagement of the chamber's property. Inthe hilt of that, they got the society registered under the provisionsof the Societies Registration Act on 20.03.2000. All the efforts madeby the petitioner exposing the illegal act of respondents 7 and 8 byconverting into a Governmental organisation into one of a privatesociety to respondents 1 to 3 yielded no result. Hence, the present https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petition. 3. Respondents 1 to 3, the official respondents of the Governmentof Pondicherry through the the Under Secretary, Local AdministrationDepartment, filed a counter and contended, inter alia, that theChamber of Commerce is a statutory body recognised by the erstwhileFrench Government by its decree dated 06.07.1934. Even afterindependence, the Chamber of Commerce was regarded only as a statutorybody, as could be seen from the fact that the Government of Indiabrought an amendment to the French Decree, 1934 in the year 1958. TheGovernor or his representative had power to have access to Chamber ofCommerce and be present in the meeting in an Advisory capacity.Though certain powers were vested with the Governor with regard togranting of permission for putting up construction and drawing ofamount by the Chamber of Commerce, there was no provision to put theChamber under the control of the Governor in respect of commission andomission of the chamber of Commerce under the decree. It is furthercontended that the respondents 7 and 8 even after the expiry of theirtenure are virtually managing the affairs of the chamber and itsproperties. The action of the said respondents in getting the Chamberof Commerce registered under the Provisions of the SocietiesRegistration Act is illegal and the respondents 1 to 3 arecontemplating to take suitable action against respondents 7 and 8. 4. Respondents 6 and 8 and the 7th respondent have filed separatecounter affidavits. They put in issue the locus standi of thepetitioner to file the above writ petition as a pro bono publico one.They further contended that the petitioner previously filed writpetition No.12404 of 2006 for the same relief on the same cause ofaction, but withdrew the same without assigning any reason and filedthe present writ petition. Thus, the petitioner's action is not bonafide. The petitioner has got nothing to do with the Chamber ofCommerce, but only a name lender to the person who were terminatedfrom the service of Chamber of Commerce. They explained theconstitution and functioning of the Chamber of Commerce by statingthat during the French regime traders who were paying 'patante'(pathan) which is a licence fee at the rate of Rs.80, Rs.160/- andRs.320/- were alone eligible for automatic members of the Chamber ofCommerce. The 'patante' (pathan) is nothing but a licence fee for thepurpose of doing business. In the year 1968 the Government ofPondicherry abolished the collection of pathan system and introducedsales tax. Hence, the enrolment of new members, as per the decreebecame impossible. Most of the committee members are dead and onlyrespondents 7 and 8 along with one Packiam are alive. As such, theyare looking after the affairs of the Chamber of Commerce in goodspirit. The decree of 1934 is only an executive order to regulate theaffairs of Chamber of Commerce in French Territory. The enforcementof the 1934 decree has virtually become impossible as the post ofGovernor and Mayor, who were required to be present and who wereempowered to have access with the Chamber of Commerce of Puducherry isnot now available. The Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry appointedby the Union of India cannot be regarded as, Governor as it stood in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the decree. There is no post of Mayor now available. As per theMunicipalities Act, only elected representative is functioning as theChairman of the Municipality. Because of the subsequent change inlaws governing the Municipalities, the 1934 decree has virtuallybecome unworkable for the purpose of enrolling the members, preparingthe electoral rolls and conducting elections and managing the daytoday affairs of the business and the properties of the Chamber ofCommerce. In view of the above said difficulty, the meeting of themembers of the Chamber of Commerce who were alive was conducted on15.03.2000 and unanimously resolved to register the Chamber ofCommerce under the Societies Registration Act, which has been extendedto Puducherry, with effect from 10.10.1963 for the proper functioningof the Chamber as being done in other States and union territories.The property of the chamber was purchased out of the funds of chamberand borrowed fund, but not out Government fund. Because of theunworkability of the 1934 decree and the subsequent change of law inthe union territory, 1934 decree deemed to be repealed. The Chamber ofCommerce is functioning as per the bylaws, registered with theauthorities under the Societies Registration Act for the purpose forwhich it was established and hence, the writ petition may bedismissed.5. From the above narrated facts, the following two points arisefor consideration :1.Whether the writ petition filed as a pro bono publico ismaintainable at the hands of the petitioner?2. Whether any order as prayed for by the petitioner could bepassed on the basis of the facts narrated in the affidavitfiled in support of the writ petition?6. The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming that heis the Secretary of the Federation for People's Rights, Puduchery.Except saying so, there is no material made available to substantiatethe same either in the affidavit or in the so called rejoinder filedin the writ petition to project a public interest. When this Courtposed a question as to how a public interest litigation ismaintainable at the hands of the petitioner, the petitioner, withoutobtaining any permission or leave from this Court, pushed into theRegistry a rejoinder affidavit alleged to have been filed in responseto the counter and rejoinder filed by respondents 6 and 7, in which itis stated that it is the duty of every citizen of our country tosafeguard the public property and to abjure violence, to strivetowards excellence in all spheres of individual and collectiveactivity, so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels ofendeavour and achievement listed under Article 51A of the Constitutionof India. It is stated that the petitioner is a human rights activistworking towards justice, equality and social order, protecting andpromoting human rights issues at Pondicherry and Tamilnadu. It isfurther stated that the petitioner was instrumental in organizing aprotest and highlighted the rape committed on one Padmini at Annamalai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nagar police station, Chidambaram and certain events in which he hasparticipated in respect of human rights has been catalogued. 7. Being a human rights activist, cannot by itself, be regardedthat the petitioner is having a locus standi to maintain this writpetition. It is repeatedly held by the apex Court that 'Publicinterest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great careand circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful tosee that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly privatemalice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking.'8. The apex Court further ruled that the Public InterestLitigation is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of lawfor delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand nameof public interest litigation should not be used for suspiciousproducts of mischief. It should be aimed at the redressal of genuinepublic wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded onpersonal vendetta. The apex Court also issued a cautionary note thatCourt must be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of thepublic, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not forpersonal gain or private motive or political motivation or otheroblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to beabused for oblique consideration by masked phantoms who monitor attimes from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in thepastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit orfrom improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well toenrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to winnotoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodiesdeserve to be thrown out by rejecting at the threshold, and inappropriate cases, with exemplary costs. Ordinarily, only theaggrieved person has the right to seek redress before a Court of law.(See Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, 2004 (3) SCC 349 andM/S Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra, 2007 (14) Scale10.9. It is also well recognised principle that for every actionthere must be a cause of action. The cause of action, in order tofile a writ petition, much less a public interest litigation, shouldgain some meaning, as stated under section 20-C of the Code of CivilProcedure (See Easterm Coal Fields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee, 2008 (3)SCC 456). So far as the present writ petition is concerned, thepetitioner has not stated any cause of action as described in section20C of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. We are not able to accept that the petitioner has come to theCourt with clean hands or benevolent cause for the simple reason thatalready a Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioneron the very same allegations against the Union Territory ofPondicherry, represented by its Chief Secretary, the Secretary toGovernment, Local Administration Department, Pondicherry, and theSecretary to Government, Law Department, Government of Pondicherry,with the prayers (i) to take immediate and appropriate action on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2005 given against the 6threspondent – Chamber of Commerce, represented by its Secretary,Pondicherry and its erred members and (ii) to direct the 5th respondent– the Registrar of Companies, Pondicherry, to take appropriate actionagainst the sixth respondent on the representation of the petitionerdated 21.10.2005 made to the Lieutenant Governor, Pondicherry, whichhad been forwarded and received by the 5th respondent inNo.105/2000/SRA/Comp/2006 and the representation dated 08.03.2006 ofS.Bakkiam, former speaker of the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly andformer Treasurer of Chamber De Commerce.11. The said writ petition came to be disposed of in thefollowing manner on 31.07.2007:"Learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed a letterdated 24.07.2007 to the Registry stating that this writpetition may be posted for withdrawal. Accordingly, thematter is posted today for withdrawal. Learned counsel alsosubmits that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn.The petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs."But the present writ petition was filed on 20.07.2007 before thisCourt on the very same averments sworn in by way of solemn affidavitby the very same person, with a camouflaged prayer as follows :"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is,therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased topass an Order, Direction or Writ in the nature of Writ ofDeclaration declaring that the Certificate of Registrationissued by the 4th respondent dated 20.03.2000 registering the6th respondent society as null and void and consequently directthe first respondent to conduct elections to the 5th respondentBody and restore the property of the 5th respondent from 6threspondent and to initiate criminal and civil action againstthe 7th and 8th respondents and pass such further or other orderor orders as may be deemed fit and proper"This action of the petition was explained by the petitioner in thewritten submissions thus :"The petitioner preferred the present Public InterestLitigation as the question of law involved is affecting thepublic at large. Originally an individual writ petition waspreferred by the petitioner in WP. No.12404 of 2006. Therelief claimed in the said writ petition was entirely differentfrom the relief claimed in the present Public InterestLitigation. As the issue raised was of public interest of theState, the writ petition was withdrawn and the present PublicInterest Litigation was moved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court hasheld in Sharva Shamica Sankattana V. State of Maharashtra, 2008(2) LLJ 501 a right to move fresh application after withdrawalof earlier application can be made and no liberty or direction https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to file a fresh application is necessary when there is no orderpassed on merits. Moreover, the earlier writ petition was onlyan individual writ petition and for different reliefaltogether." 12. The above extracted portion shows that the petitioner hasoriginally filed writ petition in his individual capacity and the writpetition has been withdrawn and subsequently, the present writpetition as a pro bono publico was filed. We are of the view that thestatement is totally incorrect and is made to get over the objection.13. In the affidavit of the earlier writ petition in WP No.12404of 2006, which finds place at page 35 of the typed set of papers, thepetitioner has averred as follows :"I am approaching this Hon'ble Court with the present PUBLICINTEREST LITIGATION to seek the intervention of this Hon'bleCourt to issue directions to the respondents to takeappropriate steps to take back the Chamber De Commerce whichis a public body created under the French Decree 1934 for thebenefit of trade and commerce industry in Pondicherry fromthe hands of the 6th respondent who grabbed the same illegallyby initiating appropriate civil and criminal proceedingsagainst the 6th respondent and its erred members."14. Hence, the contention that the earlier writ petition wasfiled in his individual capacity is a blatant incorrect statement andthe subsequent statement that the earlier writ petition has beenwithdrawn with a view to file a public interest litigation is alsoincorrect, as the earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on31.07.2007, whereas, the present writ petition has been filed on20.07.2007 itself and it was listed before the First Bench of thisCourt on 25.07.2007. On that day, the First Bench directed theRegistry to print the name of the Government Pleader (Pondicherry) forthe respondents and post high on the Board on 27.07.2007. 15. On 27.07.2007 when the matter came up for hearing the FirstBench passed the following order:"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerand the learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry)appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Issue notice torespondents 6 to 8 returnable on 16.08.2007. Notice toindicate that the petition may be disposed of at theadmission stage. In the meantime, until further orders,respondents 6 to 8 are directed to maintain status quo inrespect of the property of the 5th/6th respondent"16. Thus, it is on record that on the date of dismissal of theearlier writ petition, there are two writ petitions pending beforethis Court filed by the very same petitioner. The petitioner, havingfiled the present writ petition and obtained interim orders would very https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ well, rather obligated to bring it to the notice of the Court whilegetting order of dismissal in the earlier writ petition as withdrawn,which the petitioner failed to do, for the apparent reason that in theearlier writ petition there was no interim order granted by the Court,which factum has been admitted by the parties across the bar. 17. The other reason supplemented for supporting the present writpetition is that the relief claimed in the earlier writ petition wasentirely different from the present Public Interest Litigation. Asalready extracted, the earlier writ petition was also moved as PublicInterest Litigation only and the prayer sought for in the two writpetitions are identical, but camouflaged to be different. The reliefsought for in the earlier writ petition was for issuance of mandamusdirecting respondent 1 to 4 (in that writ petition) to take immediateand proper action on the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2005against the 6th respondent (in that writ petition) and its erredmembers and directing 5th respondent (in that writ petition) theRegistrar of Societies to take appropriate action against the sixthrespondent (in that writ petition) on the representation dated21.10.2005. On going through the representation dated 21.10.2005, itcould be seen that the affidavit of the present writ petition is areproduction of that representation. The prayers sought for in thatrepresentation are :1. Initiation of immediate action for cancellation of theRegistration of the Chamber of Commerce made with theRegistrar of Companies and Societies and restoration ofstatus quo-ante, subjecting the affairs of the Chamberunder the control of the Local Administrative Department,Government of Pondicherry, in accordance with the FrenchDecree 1934 and the Pondicherry Chamber of CommerceConstitution (Amendment) Act, 1966.2.Request launching of criminal prosecution againstMr.N.Govindasamy, President and Mr.A.Balasubramanian,General Secretary for their involvement in corruptpractices, fraudulent activities, commission of Breach ofTrust in relation to the affairs of the Chamber and alsofor their omissions in managing the affairs of theorganisation.3. Until the affairs of the Chamber is streamlined and putback on the rails, the Government shall swing into speedyaction and restrain the Board of Management of the Chamberto function. An administrator or a Special Officer fromthe Government shall be appointed to cleanse the affairs ofthe organisation and regulate the proper functioning of it,so that it would subserve the common economic interest ofthe members.4. As done in the past, Mr.N.Govindasamy, the President andMr.A.Balasubramanian, the General Secretary of the Chamberof Commerce, would muster all their strength and employtheir men, to destroy all available documentary evidences,files and related records. Hence, both of them have to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unseated from their posts and barred from entry into thepremises of the Chamber.18. The very same relief is now sought for in the present writpetition. Thus, the contention that the prayer sought for in theearlier writ petition is entirely different from the present one isincorrect.19. From the affidavit as well as the representation on whichreliance has been made by the petitioner, it is obvious that thepetitioner is more interested in dislodging the 7th and 8th respondentsby taking civil and criminal action against them. From the factsnarrated above, it is clear that the petitioner has moved the presentwrit petition not as a bona fide Public Interest Litigation, but underthe guise of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has sought towreck vengeance and settle his private scores against respondents 7and 8. For doing so, he has masked his face with the veil of pro bonopublico by suppression of material facts. The petitioner has movedthis PIL with oblique motive to wreck vengeance, which should not beallowed by this Court.20. Now, we will consider the second question as to whether anyorder, as prayed for by the petitioner, could be granted on the basisof the facts narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition.21. It is an admitted case of the parties that by means of adecree of 1934, the Chamber of Commerce was organised. The ter'decree' is defined as "order" and not a decree passed by any Court oflaw. As per the decree, only the person who were paying the licencefee called 'patante' for the purpose of doing their own trade iseligible to become the members, that too French Nationale.Subsequently, in exercise of the power conferred on the Union ofIndia, by section 4 of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1947, Article 2of the French Decree dated 06.07.1934 has been amended to the effectthat French or Indian National, who were having trade licence couldbecome members of the Chamber of Commerce. Thus Indian traders, whoare having trade licence were also entitled to become the members. Theelectoral roll had to be prepared and revised by the Commissioncomprised of Mayor of Pondicherry, the President of Chamber ofCommerce, two Councillors of Pondicherry Settlement designated by theCouncillor General or in default by the Colonial Commission, and theHead of Contribution Department or his delegate. The electoral listof the Chamber of commerce will be rearranged as per the trade licencetax roll. After the preparation of the electoral list, the same hasto be forwarded to the Governor for being communicated to public bypublication in the official gazette. The revised list so publishedwould be valid for one year from the date of its closure i.e., 31stMarch. The electoral body would have to be convened by the Governor'sorder. 22. Thus, it is obvious that the 1934 decree could not be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enforced, rather not enforceable because of the above reasons. It isequally an admitted fact that there is no provision contained in thedecree for taking over of the affairs of the Chamber of Commerce bythe Government or any other governmental organisation, which isevident from the 1934 decree and as admitted by the Under Secretary toGovernment on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.23. The chamber of commerce commonly known as board orassociation of businessmen and merchants organised to promote thecommercial interests of the locality, country, or the like, or asociety of a city, who meet to promote the general trade and commerceof the locality. Chambers of Commerce exist in most cities, and areloosely affiliated with the national organisation of the same name.Particular trades may also have their own organisations or Boards topromote the interest of their own trade. Organisation with functionssimilar to that of a chamber of commerce may be known under variousother names, e.g., Board of Trade. This is how the Chamber ofCommerce has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition at page230.24.The World Book Dictionary at page 338 of Volume I describes'Chamber of Commerce' as a group of business people organised toprotect and promote the business interests of a city, state orcountry. According to the Random House Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage, Chamber of Commerce means an association of businessmen toprotect and promote the commercial interests in a community.Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary at Page 138 denotesChamber of Commerce as an association of businessmen to promotecommercial and industrial interests. The Concise Law Dictionary ofP.Ramanatha Iyer, describes 'Chamber of Commerce' as an association ofthe principal merchants, traders and others organised for promotingthe interests of trade. 25. Thus, it could be seen that the Chamber of Commerce protectsand promotes the business interest of the traders in a particular areaand it resolves the dispute between the traders and also renderssuggestions to the Government at the time of passing orders in respectof levy of tax and other allied subjects for the welfare of theindustrial growth of the State and welfare of the traders. Such anorganisation cannot be allowed to be dormant nor allowed to becomedefunct because of the unworkability of the 1934 decree in the presentday situation.26. It is an admitted fact that after 1969, no election could beconducted because of the changed circumstances. As there was nocontrolling authority or controlling person over the affairs of thechamber of commerce, and the 1934 decree virtually became unworkable,respondents 7 and 8, who were elected for a term of five years, in theabsence of any other members, continued to manage the affairs of thechamber and got it registered under the provisions of the SocietiesRegistration Act, 1914, which has been extended to the Union territoryof Pondicherry from 01.10.1963 and thereby brought the Chamber of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Commerce under the control of the statutory authority, the Registrarof Societies.27. The official respondents 1 to 3 filed counter contemplatingaction against respondents 7 and 8 but obviously they are not able totake action against them as there is no explicit provision in thedecree. If the official respondents consider it as necessary, it iswell open to them to bring out a new legislation as per their wisdom. 28. The other allegations that the property has been purchasedout of the public money is also belied by the averments contained inthe very document, which is in the typed set filed by the petitionerin the writ petition. The sale deed dated 06.07.1908 shows that 12shops have been purchased by the President of Chamber of CommerceMr.Henry Gaebele. It is evident from the covenants contained in thedeed that the sale was made for and against a sum of Rs.37,500/-, theprinciple price which the purchaser paid was in the following manner :Rs.18,750/- paid on the date of execution of the deed in coins andbank notes of Indochina. The other half of Rs.18,750/-, the purchaserundertook to pay it one year after the execution of the sale deed. 29. In respect of the other property – a big storeyed house withits dependencies situated at Suffren street, Pondicherry, dated19.06.1916, that was also purchased by the very same President ofChamber of Commerce Mr.Henry Gaebele, for and against a sum ofRs.10,000/- borrowed from 'Board of Sengajaniamman temple' representedby its President, by mortgaging the same property. Here again thereis no material placed by the petitioner or respondents 1 to 3 to showthat the properties were purchased from and out of the public money.Hence, the contention that the properties of the Chamber of Commerceare the properties of the Government cannot be accepted as thepetitioner and the official respondents who claimed so, failed toestablish the same. If there is any omission or commission on thepart of the Chamber of Commerce, that can be controlled by theRegistrar under the Societies Registration Act, as the Chamber ofCommerce is now registered as a society under the provisions of theAct. 30. Writ petitioner, who comes to the Court for relief in publicinterest must come not only with clean hands like any other writpetitioner, but also with a clean heart, clean mind and cleanobjective. On the contrary, it is obvious, as aforesaid, thepetitioner has come to Court with oblique motive by suppressing thematerial facts, which is impermissible in law. 31. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching asuperior Court must come with a pair of clean hands. He not onlyshould not suppress any material fact, but also should not takerecourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts toabuse of process of law. (See : Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyg WelfareSanstha v. State of UP, 2008 (2) LW 490) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32. In the result, we find that the petition filed by thepetitioner as a pro bono publico, is nothing but an abuse of processof law with oblique motive. The petition is liable to be dismissedand it is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-. Theconnected miscellaneous petitions in M.Ps. Nos.1 to 5 are consequentlydismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarmfTo1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY ,PUDUCHERRY.2. THE SECRETARY,LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,PUDUCHERRY.3. THE MAYOR OF PUDUCHERRY,PUDUCHERRY MUNICIPALITY,PUDUCHERRY.4. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES,PUDUCHERRY, MINISTRY OF COMPANYAFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,35, ELANGO NAGAR,I FLOOR,III CROSS, PUDUCHERRY 605 011.5. THE MAYOR OF PUDUCHERRY,THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCEPROMULGATED BY THE DECREE OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, PUDUCHERRY. +1cc to Ms.D.Geetha, Advocate Sr 37512+1cc to M/s. G.M.Mani Associates,Sr 37439+1cc to Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, Advocate Sr 37612SSN(CO)km/25.7.W.P.No.25078 of 2007