(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the Respondents from re-shifting the Secretariat and the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from the New Secretariat at Omandurar Government Estate to Fort St. George and pass such further or other orders.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from re-shifting the Secretariat and the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from the New Secretariat Complex at Omandurar Government Estate to its old place at Fort St. George.

2. It is alleged that originally the Secretariat of the Government of Tamil Nadu has functioned from Fort St. George. It was built the British Period in 1640 and it was the seat of power for more than 300 years. The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Chief Ministers Office and other Ministers Office are all housed in the said old building. During the year 1975 a 10-storey building was constructed to ease out congestion in the corridors, and in the said building various departments of the Government start functioning. Since, the Fort St. George belongs to Defence Department, and since, the State Government could not house all its main offices inside the same for want of space and many of the Government Offices were scattered in and around Ezhilagam Building at Chepauk, the then Government headed by the present Chief Minister had started to look out for a proper place to house the State Secretariat. It was decided to construct a new Secretariat at Queen Marys College premises at Chennai. Soon after the then Government was voted out of power, the said project was thrown to dark. It is further alleged that in the year 2006, the then newly formed Government sensing the need for a spacious building to house its various departments and the State Legislative Assembly, started searching for a new location. It identified the Omandurar Government Estate in Anna Salai, Chennai for the construction of New Secretariat. After demolishing the various old structures, which were present in the said location for many years, the then Government started constructing a New Secretariat at an estimated cost of `450 Crores. Due to escalation of cost, and due to certain additions and deletions in the plan, the cost of the construction shot up `1,100 Crores. The New Secretariat Complex was opened on 13.03.2010. Thereafter, on 02.06.2010, the Legislative Assembly Hall at the Old Secretariat viz., Fort St. George was allotted to the use of a Library, it appears that now the newly elected Government decided to shift the State Secretariat from Omandurar Estate, Anna Salai, Chennai to its original place at Fort St. George, Chennai.

3. The main contention of Dr. Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the shifting of the State Secretariat from Omandurar Estate, Anna Salai, Chennai to its previous place viz., Fort St. George, Chennai is illegal, arbitrary, unauthorized and against public interest. The shifting is unmindful of the huge expenditure incurred already. It is borne out of whims and fancies of those in power. Since, the State Exchequer is already in a poor state, the shifting will create a huge strain on the public exchequer. The decision to shift is purely a colourable exercise, and it must be checked.

4. Dr. Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, confined his submission only to the extent that in any event, such decision should not have been taken in the interregnum, i.e., the period between 14.5.2011 and 15.5.2011, especially when the new Government assumed Office only on 16.5.2011.

5. We have perused the Writ Petition and considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

6. The question that falls for consideration firstly, is as to whether such a relief can be sought for by designing the Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation; and secondly, whether this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can interfere with the administrative and policy decisions of the Government and decide as to whether the State Secretariat will be located, in the new building or in the old building.

7. It is well settled that Public Interest Litigation is not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial, economic or other decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt, a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a Court of law, but a Public Interest Litigation for such cause cannot be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden. It has also been settled by the Apex Court that the forum of Public Interest Litigation is not meant for serving political purpose or solving political problem; political problem ought to be solved through political process, and not through judicial process. The Concept of Public Interest Litigation is evolved for the purpose of safeguarding the interest and welfare of the poor people who are in a disadvantaged position and not to decide the propriety of the policy decision of the Government.

8. De Smith, in his book Judicial Review, on the question of limitation of Courts in the matter of policy decisions, observed thus:

Asserting the Constitutional capacity of the Courts in these situations does not, however, mean that the Courts should not recognize both their own Constitutional and relative institutional limitations. As we have already discussed in relation to the question of justiciability, decisions involving policy,-the utilitarian calculation of the public good-such as decisions about the levels of taxation or public expenditure are. Constitutionally, in the realm of the legislature. In respect of other decisions, the relative institutional capacity of Courts and the legislature, executive and other bodies will be relevant to the extent and degree of judicial intervention. Decisions that are polycetric, involving the allocation of scarce resources (for example, whether a hospital should provide very expensive treatments) are similarly not normally suited to decisions by Courts. Decisions taken by experts, and those best able to calculate risk, indicate some measure of institutional respect.

The author further says as follows:

Substantive review in English law has been dominated by the Concept of Unreasonableness closely identified with the famous formulation by Lord Greene, M.R. in the Wednesbury case, that the Courts can only interfere if a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever come to it. That formulation attempts, albeit imperfectly, to convey the point that Judges should not lightly interfere with official decisions on this ground. In exercising their powers of review, Judges ought not to imagine themselves as being in the position of the Competent Authority when the decision was taken and then test the reasonableness of the decision against the decision they would hae taken. To do that would involve the Courts in a review of the merits of the decision, as if they were themselves the recipients of the power. For that reason, Lord Greene in Wednesbury thought that an unreasonable decision under his definition would require something overwhelming (such as a teacher being dismissed on the ground of her red hair).

9. In the case of Union of India v. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta & Kannadigara & Others, 2002 (10) SCC 226, a decision of the Central Government to locate the Head Quarters of the South Western Railway at Hubli, instead of Bangalore, was challenged before the Karnataka High Court on the ground that once the Railways has decided to establish the Head Quarters at Bangalore and spent public fund in putting up a part of the establishment, the subsequent decision of shifting the Head Quarters to Hubli was bad in law. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition holding that the decision was vitiated on account of legal mala fide as the Appellant has decided to shift the zonal Office from Bangalore to Hubli without any change in the policy decision. The matter came to the Supreme Court. Their lordships, while setting aside the decision of the High Court, held as under:

5. We do not find any basis for the High Court coming to the conclusion that the decision of the Union Cabinet was vitiated on account of legal mala fides. Merely because an administrative decision has been taken to locate the headquarters at Bangalore, which decision is subsequently altered by the same authority, namely, the Union Cabinet, cannot lead one to the conclusion that there has been legal mala fides. Why the headquarters should be at Hubli and not at Bangalore, is not for the Court to decide. There are various factors which have to be taken into consideration when a decision like this has to be arrived at. Assuming that the decision so taken is a political one, it cannot possibly give rise to a challenge on the ground of legal mala fides. A political decision, if taken by a Competent Authority in accordance with law, cannot per se be regarded as mala fide. In any case, there is nothing on the record to show that the present decision was motivated by political consideration. The observation of the High Court that there has been a change in the decision because there was a change of the Governments and a different political party had come into power, is not supported by any basis. That the Court will not interfere in questions of policy decision is clearly brought out by the following passage from a decision of this Court in Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, 1996 (2) SCC 405 [LQ/SC/1996/428] , when at p.413, it was observed as follows: (SCC p.413, para 7):

7. What has been said in respect of legislations is applicable even in respect of policies which have been adopted by Parliament. They cannot be tested in Court of law. The Courts cannot express their opinion as to whether at a particular juncture or under a particular situation prevailing in the country any such national policy should have been adopted or not. There may be views and views, opinions and opinions which may he shared and believed by citizens of the country including the representatives of the people in Parliament. But that has to be sorted out in Parliament which has to approve such policies. Privatization is a fundamental concept underlying the questions about the power to make economic decisions. What should be the role of the State in the economic development of the nation How the resources of the country shall be used How the goals fixed shall be attained What are to be the safeguards to prevent the abuse of the economic power What is the mechanism of accountability to ensure that the decision regarding privatization is in public interest All these questions have to be answered by a vigilant Parliament. Courts have their limitations-because these issues rest with the policy-makers for the nation. No direction can be given or is expected from the courts unless while implementing such policies, there is violation or infringement of any of the Constitutional or statutory provision. The new Telecom policy was placed before Parliament and it shall be deemed that Parliament has approved the same. This Court cannot review and examine as to whether the said policy should have been adopted. Of course, whether there is any legal or Constitutional bar in adopting such policy can certainly be examined by the Court.

10. In the instant case also, in our view, it is for the Government to decide as to which building shall be comfortable for the purpose of establishing the State Secretariat. If the Government takes a policy decision to run the Secretariat from the old building, this Court cannot issue a direction to the Government to change their decision.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.