File PIL after doing proper ground work:HC

Observing that the purpose of filing a PIL is not to get one's name in the newspaper, the Madras High Court today advised PIL petitioners to do ground work and acquire expertise in the field before the jurisdiction is invoked under the plea.
The matter relates to a PIL filed by one advocate G. Sivagami seeking to direct the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary to frame rules for Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 and Chennai Municipal Laws and the Chennai Metropolitan Area Ground water (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2014 for regulating and management of borewells and tubewells.
In its order, the First Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, said "the ground work seems to have been completely absent in the present case."

Sivagami filed the plea after reading in a daily about the death of a four-year-old child who fell into an abandoned borewell.
The bench, after going through the affidavits filed by the Vellore Collector and the Chief Secretary, said: "What emerges now is that the unfortunate death of child was a direct result of the negligence of the landowner who opened the borewell to identify the water source and did not close it and the deceased child is none other than the son of the sister of the said landowner."
Stating that if a little more inquiry had been made by the PIL petitioner the facts would have come to light, the bench said "the death was a result of a negligence of the direct relative who owned the property, rather than put the blame on the government in this case."

The bench, while describing about the payment of compensation by the government, said: "the government pleader states that within a week, an ad hoc compensation would be paid though the liability is of the landowner and the amount would be recovered from the landowner as the family would need succour at this time."
The bench found fault with the government for notifying the rules under Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 only on this February 18 despite the August 27 court order last year directing government to notify it within a month from the date of the order.
"We would have expected the government to move the court for extension of time if the rules were not being notified within the time as per the order," the court said and closed the petition.