Judgment : V. Ramasubramanian, J. The petitioner has come up with the above Public Interest Litigation, seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to constitute a medical board for the examination of the inmates of the 8th respondent trust and for transferring the complaint registered against them, from the file of the 7th respondent, for a proper investigation. 2. Heard Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. On 07.06.2014, a news item appeared in the press to the effect that a lady by name Mehar Nisha came running out of the 8th respondent trust without cloths and that the public rescued her. A criminal complaint came to be lodged with the 7th respondent police. 4. Immediately after the said report appeared in the press, the District President of the All India Democratic Women's Association of Madurai District came up with a writ petition in W.P(MD) No.9793 of 2014. The said writ petition came up for orders as to admission on 19.06.2014. On the said date, we passed two set of interim orders, after ascertaining the views of Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General. The interim order passed on 19.06.2014 was to the following effect: "The petitioner, who is the District President of the All India Democratic Women's Association of Madurai District, has come up with the above Public Interest Litigation, seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to strictly enforce the provisions of Chapter X to XII of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the provisions contained in the Rules issued thereunder, for ensuring the safety and well being of mentally challenged inmates, housed in all Non-Governmental Organisations and Institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu. 2. 2. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner seeks certain interim reliefs, which are as follows; (i) M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 for a direction to the fifth respondent to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by a Sensitive Police Officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, to investigate into the complaint preferred by the victim girl; (ii) M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2014 to appoint a serving District Judge to conduct an enquiry into the allegations against the seventh respondent, about the sexual and physical abuse to the victim girl referred to in the affidavit and also the circumstances surrounding the death of about 118 inmates of the seventh respondent Home; (iii) M.P.(MD) No.3 of 2014 to direct the fourth respondent to ensure the safety of other female inmates in the seventh respondent Home by removing the delinquent staff from the seventh respondent Home; and (iv) M.P.(MD).No.4 of 2014 for a direction to the second respondent to constitute a Medical Board consisting of Senior Psychiatrists and other qualified persons to assess the mental state and capacity of the victim girl. 3. Heard Mrs.U.Nirmala Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Bhaskara Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 6. Issue notice to the 7th respondent returnable by 23-6-2014. 4. When this matter was brought for orders as to admission in the morning, we requested Mr.K.Chellapandian, the learned Additional Advocate General to get instructions and suggest the name of a sensitive woman Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 5. In the afternoon, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the name of an Officer by name Tmt.V.Shyamala Devi, Additional Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Madurai District, could be considered. He also submitted that the victim girl, whose complaint triggered the present Public Interest Litigation was medically examined and has been sent by the police, to the Kilpauk Government Mental Hospital, Chennai. He confirmed that the complaint has been registered on the file of the sixth respondent police. 6. The averments contained in the affidavit show that in a short span of time, the death of about 118 inmates have been reported from the seventh respondent Home. A woman inmate, by name Ms.Mehar Nisha was allegedly subjected to sexual abuse. She was rescued by the All India Democratic Women's Association and was admitted to the Government Rajaji Hospital. 6. The averments contained in the affidavit show that in a short span of time, the death of about 118 inmates have been reported from the seventh respondent Home. A woman inmate, by name Ms.Mehar Nisha was allegedly subjected to sexual abuse. She was rescued by the All India Democratic Women's Association and was admitted to the Government Rajaji Hospital. It appears that the employees of the seventh respondent, whose names are mentioned by the victim, still continue to work there. 7. In the light of these shocking facts, the truth or otherwise of which, cannot now be gone into, we are of the view that certain preliminary directions could be issued even ex-parte, so that the safety and security of the inmates of the seventh respondent Home, who are mentally challenged, is taken care of. 8. It is needless to point out that the Court has a duty and obligation even constitutionally to protect children as well as mentally challenged persons. Therefore, the following interim order is passed: (i) Tmt.V.Shyamala Devi, Additional Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Madurai District, shall conduct an investigation into the allegations made in the FIR filed against the inmates of the seventh respondent and which is pending investigation on the side of the sixth respondent police; (ii) Mrs.D.Geetha, Advocate, No.10, Law Chambers, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, is appointed as a Commissioner, to visit the seventh respondent Trust along Mrs.Rani Chakkaravarthi, a Psychologist, No.1, Min Nagar, Surveyor Colony, Madurai, to ascertain the conditions prevailing in the seventh respondent Trust, find out the safety and security of the inmates, assess the infrastructural facilities available in the Home, take note of the maintenance of Records and Registers and submit a report to this Court on 23.06.2014. Call on 23.06.2014. In the meantime, the petitioner shall send notice to the seventh respondent returnable by 23.06.2014". 5. On the same day namely, 19.06.2014 when that writ petition was moved, an Association by name Thevar Desiya Peravai, represented by the petitioner herein, engaged a counsel and the counsel made a plea seeking permission to implead themselves as a party to the said writ petition. We did not accord permission, as it was sufficient for one writ petition being entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. 6. Thereafter, the writ petition W.P(MD)No.9793 of 2014, again came up for hearing on 23.06.2014. We did not accord permission, as it was sufficient for one writ petition being entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. 6. Thereafter, the writ petition W.P(MD)No.9793 of 2014, again came up for hearing on 23.06.2014. On that date, the Advocate Commissioner and the Psychologist appointed by this Court submitted two reports, one in a sealed cover and another in the form of a report. Accepting the same, we passed the following order on 23.06.2014: "The Commissioner appointed by this Court by our order dated 19.06.2014, has submitted her report along with a sealed cover containing the interviews that the Advocate Commissioner had with some of the inmates. 2. The copy of the report is also furnished to Mr.Natesha Raja, learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent Home and he is represented by Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel. 3. As per the report, there are 537 people, of whom, 171 are women and 366 are men. Though the seventh respondent Home appears to have claimed that out of 537 people, 91 are mentally challenged, they do not appear to have produced any records to the Commissioner. The living conditions in the Home for all these 537 people, according to the report, fall short of the requirements. 4. Therefore, the Commissioner is requested to do the following: (i) make another visit along with Mrs.Rani Chakkaravarthi, a Psychologist, and ask the Managing Trustee of the seventh respondent Home to identify those 91 persons whom, according to the Trust, are mentally challenged. The seventh respondent should furnish the list of those 91 persons with their names, addresses and any other details of treatment or medical examination, on the basis of which, the seventh respondent had come to that conclusion; (ii) The seventh respondent should also produce to the Advocate Commissioner, the register, in which, entries with regard to those 91 persons have been made. If the seventh respondent is in possession of any medical records to show that those 91 persons are mentally challenged, the xerox copies of those records should also be furnished to the Advocate Commissioner; and (iii) Insofar as the other inmates are concerned, the Advocate Commissioner shall ascertain the names and addresses of those persons, who are allegedly kept in the Home, without their consent. The list may also include those who now want to go back to their homes. The list may also include those who now want to go back to their homes. But the details about their relatives and residential addresses should also be found out and furnished in a report. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General is also directed to get a report from the Kilpauk Government Mental Hospital, Chennai, where Ms.Mehar Nisha is undergoing treatment, to enable the Court to decide the future course of action with regard to that girl. Post on 26.06.2014" 7. The writ petition W.P(MD)No.9793 of 2014 now stands adjourned to 26.06.2014 for further report from the Advocate Commissioner. In the meantime, the 8th respondent trust who was cited as 7th respondent in that writ petition has also entered appearance. At this stage, the petitioner who wanted permission to implead his association as a party to the first writ petition has come up with the present writ petition as an independent Public Interest Litigation, on the specious plea that the petitioner was the first person to visit the 8th respondent home and cull out information and also on the ground that the prayer made herein is entirely different from the prayer made in the previous writ petition. 8. But we do not wish to entertain the present writ petition for any number of reasons, some of which we will record here: i) The report in the press about an inmate of the 8th respondent home running out of the home naked, appeared in the press on 07.06.2014. The first writ petition filed at the instance of the All India Democratic Women's Association of Madurai District came up for hearing on 19.06.2014. It was only after making an attempt on 19.06.2014, to implead his association as a party, that the petitioner made the first representation to the respondents on 20.06.2014. Therefore, we do not think that the present Public Interest Litigation is motivated by a desire only to do public good. ii) The second reason why we do not wish to entertain this Public Interest Litigation is that the petitioner's association has already carried out public demonstrations. Though a demonstration carried out in a democratic manner, cannot be found fault with or condemned, there appears to be a collateral purpose behind the demonstration held by the petitioner's association. This can be seen from the letter addressed to the newspapers, by the petitioner's association. Though a demonstration carried out in a democratic manner, cannot be found fault with or condemned, there appears to be a collateral purpose behind the demonstration held by the petitioner's association. This can be seen from the letter addressed to the newspapers, by the petitioner's association. In the letter addressed to the editors of newspapers, sent on 21.06.2014 by the petitioner's association, the petitioner's association has requested the newspapers to publish information about their demonstration in the newspapers, so as to help the association development itself. This shows that the demonstration as well as the Public Interest Litigation is not merely motivated by a desire to advance public cause but also with a desire to develop the association. Such a Public Interest Litigation can never be entertained by this Court. As a matter of fact, the Court is conscious of its responsibilities to children as well as the mentally challenged persons. Therefore, when we are already seized of a writ petition and we have passed interim orders to bring the inmates of the home under the protective care of this Court, we do not think that any other person need to show greater concern than what we have shown. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.