Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3583 (MAD)

K. A. Abuthahir v. N. Jeevakanthan

2013-10-03

S.TAMILVANAN

body2013
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/third party as well as respondents 2 and 3. 2. It is seen that the suit in O.S. No.180 of 2013, was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff against respondents 2 and 3 seeking judgment and decree as follows: "a) declaring that the acts of the defendants in classifying the Tirupur Railway Station as Special Class Station ("A1 Station") is illegal, arbitrary and non-est in law; b) granting an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their officials, servants, agents, partisans or any other person claiming under or through them from in any way calling for, awarding any tender or contract permanently or temporarily in respect of Tirupur Railway Station classifying the Tirupur Railway Station as Special Class Station ("A1 Station") by disturbing the present status in any manner whatsoever; c) Directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit..." 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the successful bidder and as directed by respondents 2 and 3, he deposited a sum of Rs.7,84,800/- and also agreed for the terms and conditions imposed by respondents 2 and 3. However, without impleading the petitioner as necessary party, the first respondent herein filed a suit before the Court below for himself and on behalf of the residents of Tirupur Town, who are travelling by train from Tirupur Railway Station to other stations and got an order of status quo detrimental to the rights of the petitioner, hence, the petitioner has filed this revision and also obtained leave from this Court to maintain the revision, as he was not impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit. 4. In spite of service of notice ordered in C.R.P. Sr.54437 of 2013, there was no representation for the first respondent. Mr.V.G. Suresh Kumar, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that earlier a similar vexatious suit was filed by some other person in O.S. No.291 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirupur and got injunction in I.A. No.1574 of 2011 against which the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), Southern Railway filed revision in C.R.P. (PD) No.3981 of 2012 (-reported in 2013- 2-L.W. 964) whereby this Court (S. Nagamuthu, J.) allowed the revision imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- on the person who filed the suit stating himself as President, Tirupur Railway Station. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 drew the attention of this Court to para 11 of the copy of the order passed by this Court on 22.03.2013 in the said C.R.P. as follows: "11. Above all, whether a railway station is to be classified as Grade ‘A' or some other grade is a policy matter of the railway authorities and no individual can have any civil right in respect of the same. If any individual has got any public interest in respect of the said classification, the remedy lies elsewhere to workout. I only say that in the present suit, the respondent/plaintiff has got no civil dispute at all giving jurisdiction under Section 9 of CPC to the Civil Court. For all these reasons, in my considered opinion, allowing the suit to remain on the file of the trial court any more will only further waste the valuable time of the trial court." 5. It has been admitted by respondents 2 and 3 that the petitioner/third party to the suit, being the successful bidder, as per the terms and conditions dated 20.05.2013, had deposited a sum of Rs.7,84,800/- with the second respondent and the contract was also entrusted to the petitioner, however, without impleading the petitioner herein as a party, the present suit in O.S. No. 180 of 2013 was filed by the first respondent. It is not a public interest litigation preferred by the first respondent to safeguard the rights of other persons and the relief sought for in the suit is to declare the acts of the defendants in classifying the Tirupur Railway Station as Special Class Station ("A1 Station") illegal, arbitrary and non est in the eye of law, though the same is a policy decision of the Government of India. The first respondent has not stated as per the copy of the plaint filed in the typed set of papers whether he is the President of any registered Association or Society, even if he is the President of any registered Association, he cannot have any locus standi or subsisting right to maintain any suit against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 to seek the relief, without impleading the revision petitioner, as necessary party. Hence, filing such a suit has to be construed only as abuse of process of law and the Court. 6. Hence, filing such a suit has to be construed only as abuse of process of law and the Court. 6. It has been clear that filing a suit without any subsisting right, to protract the implementation of the tender and the contract and causing loss to the successful bidder and the Railways is an illegal act. Even as per the earlier order, this Court has categorically given its findings, whereby imposed cost against one Gowrinathan, who had filed a vexatious suit on behalf of Tirupur Railway Association, though the earlier suit was also relating to the file of very same Principal Sub Court, Tiruppur. However, the Court below erroneously, without considering the view of this Court and also the abuse of process committed by a third party, has granted the interim order. The petitioner, successful bidder was not impleaded as party and without any subsisting right in favour of the first respondent herein, he filed the suit, hence, to meet the ends of justice, the revision petition has to be allowed and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and abuse of process committed by the first respondent, cost of Rs.25, 000/- is imposed on the first respondent. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the first respondent to the Southern Railways and the second respondent herein is entitled to recover the same from the first respondent. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.