Kerala High Court
Shinto Kuriakose vs The State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 489
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2020 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1942
WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
SHINTO KURIAKOSE
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.P.K.KURIAKOSE, PALLTHAZHATH HOUSE,
MUTTITHADY P.O., THRISSUR-680317.
BY ADVS.
SRI.NIRMAL.S
SMT.VEENA HARI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
3 THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHAIRMAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
4 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THRISSUR
DISTRICT OFFICE, MAJESTIC SQUARE BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR,
PARAVATTANI P.O., OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR-680655.
SR.GP SRI SURIN GEORGE IPE FOR R1,
SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 TO R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 2
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ Shinto Kuriakose, a law student, has filed the instant writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibits-P7, P8, P10 and P11 circulars.
He has also sought for a mandamus requiring that a portion in the note in Exhibit-P6 amendment notification, fixing three times the annual rent/lease of industries/ establishments functioning in rented/leased accommodation as the investment on land/buildings for calculating consent fee, be declared as unconstitutional.
2. Petitioner has also sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents not to levy fees with retrospective effect from such applicants, who have applied for consent to operate, without obtaining a prior consent to establish.
3. It is also his prayer, to issue mandamus, directing the respondents to strictly enforce Exhibit-P5 circular and refund the amount collected towards consent fees, if consent applied for is refused or the proposal for establishment is dropped.
4. Though, in paragraph No.1 of the Statement of facts, petitioner has contended that he has been helping budding entrepreneurs and uneducated industrialists as a consultant, aiding such industrialists in the procedure for obtaining consent from various Government agencies, including the Pollution Control Board, and that he originally aspired to be an entrepreneur, but due to WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 3 the arbitrary actions on the part of the respondents, he had to abandon his career as a small scale industrialist and pursue his studies in law, at paragraph No.5 thereof, petitioner has contended that he has paid a sum of Rs.2,000/-
towards 4 years' fee for consent to operate, but the respondents are insisting the him to pay an additional amount of Rs.500/- towards consent to operate fee, for another one year, when the rule permits that consent fees can, either be paid in installments or lump sum.
5. It is also the contention of the petitioner that, aggrieved by the return of the application and demand of payment especially when faced with COVID-
19 pandemic situation, the subsequent lock down and its repercussions, petitioner has preferred a representation before the Environmental Engineer, Kerala Pollution Control Board, Thrissur (4th respondent). A copy of the representation dated 20.4.2020 produced along with the Statement of facts is extracted hereunder:
"Thrissur 20/04/2020 To The Assistant Environment Engineer, Pollution Control Board, Thrissur District Office.
Sub: Application regarding "consent to operate".
Ref: PCB/DO/TSR/F/ICE/2756/219 Madam, As per the reference cited above, "consent to establish has been granted to the Goat Farm named "Edan Gardens" and the WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 4 construction of the farm is also completed. Therefore, I humbly request your good self to grant "consent to operate" for four years for the farm.
Though consent to operate is usually granted for a term of 5 years, considering the financial stringency posed due to the COVID- 19 situation, I humbly request your good self to adjust the remaining fee to be paid towards consent to operate with the balance amount to establish fees and issue the consent to operate certificate.
Sd/-
Shinto."
6. In the same paragraph, petitioner has also sought for adjusting the balance "consent to establish" fees with the 4 th respondent towards the balance "consent to operate" fees to be remitted. But, the 4 th respondent has not initiated action on the same.
7. Thus, reading of the Statement of facts in its entirety coupled with Exhibit-P4 representation make it clear that petitioner is personally aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not granting consent to establish and the demand of fees, as per the circulars cited above.
8. Though Mr.Nirmal S., learned counsel for petitioner, made a strenuous attempt to contend that instant writ petition has been filed for ventilating the grievance of small scale entrepreneurs and, therefore, there is a cause to file the writ petition, we are not inclined to accept such contention, for the reasons cited above. Reference has also been made to ground Nos. P & T, which read thus:
WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 5"P. Imposing hefty amounts towards consent fees results in, industrialists and investors shying away from obtaining the Consent of the board thus, leading to industries, falling apart from the frame work of the Environment Protection Laws.
T. The Fundamental Right of the petitioner and similarly situated persons, guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 19 (1)(g) is violated by insisting of consent fees retrospectively by the Pollution Control Board."
9. Though learned counsel for petitioner reiterated that there is public interest involved, we are not inclined to accept the same. There are a large number of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, with respect to the entertainment of Public Interest Litigation and its scope and horizons.
10. In this context, we deem it fit to consider the scope and meaning of 'Public Interest Litigation'.
(i) In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
(ii) In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
"Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 6
(iii) In Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), [(1986) 1 SCC 100], it has been held as follows:-
"2. Public interest litigation is a comparatively recent concept of litigation but it occupies an important status in the new regime of public law in different legal systems By its very nature the concept of public interest litigation is radically different from that of traditional private litigation. Ordinary tradition litigation is essentially of an adversary character where there is a dispute between the two litigating parties, one making the claim or seeking relief against the other and the other opposing such claim or resisting such relief. While public interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another, as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, it is intended to prosecute and vindicate public interest which demands that violation of constitutional or legal rights of a large number of people, who are poor, ignorant or socially and economically in disadvantaged position, should not go unnoticed, unredressed for that would be destructive of the rule of law. Rule of law does not mean protection to a fortunate few or that it should be allowed to be prosecuted by vested interests for protecting and upholding the status quo. The poor too have a civil and political right. Rule of standing evolved by Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that only a person wronged can sue for judicial redress may not hold good in the present setting. Therefore, new strategy has to be evolved so that justice becomes easily available to the lowly and the lost. Law is not a closed shop. Even under the old system it was permissible for the next friend to move the WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 7 court on behalf of a minor or a person under disability or a person under detention or in restraint. Public interest litigation seeks to further relax the rule of locus standi.
(iv) In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305], the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 52 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, has laid down as follows :
"The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL" means the legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows:
"Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold."
In para 96 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as follows:
"While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that Courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration."
In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:
WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 8It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have as locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold".
It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievance go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters
- government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 9 motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system.
Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 10
(v) While observing that Public Interest Litigation is a weapon to be used with great care and circumspection, in Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. P.C.Mishra [2008 (1) MLJ 1075], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"20.The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. .... It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. ....."
(vi) In P. Seshadri v. S.Mangati Gopal Reddy and others, [(2011) 5 SCC 484], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
"Public interest litigation can only be entertained at the instance of bona fide litigants. It cannot be permitted to be used by unscrupulous litigants to disguise personal or individual grievances as public interest litigations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court does not approve an approach that would encourage petitions filed for achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and reckless allegations made by individuals i.e. busybodies, having little or no interest in the proceedings. The credentials, the motive and the objective of the petitioner have to be apparently and patently aboveboard. Otherwise the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.''
(vii) In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 11
"This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of the court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, "ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a Visa".
Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide: P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr., AIR 1980 SC 856; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114; State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 402; and Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 69).
11. In Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India reported in (2002) 2 SCC 33, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"Public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 12 other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz. "litigation in the interest of the public....
Judicial interference by way of PIL is available if there is injury to public because of dereliction of constitutional or statutory obligations on the part of the Government. Here it is not so and in the sphere of economic policy or reform the court is not the appropriate forum. Every matter of public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject matter of PIL. Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of the country. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or non-compliance by the State with its constitutional or statutory duties. None of these contingencies arise in this present case."
12. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., reported in [(2004) 3 SCC 349], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 13 important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke ones into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration."
13. In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v.
C.K.Rajan & Others [(2003) 7 SCC 546], the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarised the principles with respect to filing a Public Interest Litigation and they are reproduced:
"(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court.WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 14
The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional promises. [See S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 494, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 161 and Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305)]
(ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of the public vis-a-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. [See Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978) 4 SCC 104 and Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81)]
(iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. In Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani (AIR 1979 SCC 468), it was held:
"2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner's grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 15 jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances." (See also Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. and Anr. v. B.D. Agarwal and Ors. (2003) 5 SCALE 138)
(iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. [See Fertilizer Corpn.
Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344, S.P. Gupta (supra), People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra), Dr. D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 378 and BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others [(2002) 2 SCC 333]
(v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition.
(vi) Although procedural laws apply to PIL cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depends on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. [See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 and Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri and others (1986) 1 SCC 100]
(vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 16 interest litigation. (See Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India and Others 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251)
(viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (See Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and Others (1987) 1 SCC 227).
(ix) The Court in special situations may appoint a Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such Committee. (See Bandhua Mukti Morchai, Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar (1989) Suppl 1 SCC 644 and A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718). In Sachidanand Panday and Another v. State of West Bengal and others [(1987) 2 SCC 295], this Court held,-
"61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action on when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extent its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the need, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such is required. But this does mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants."WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 17
14. This Court in the unreported judgment dated 30.06.2020 in B. Radhakrishna Menon v. State of Kerala and Ors. [W.P.(C) No.12109 of 2020], at paragraph 45, held thus:
"45. Placing reliance on the above decisions, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a public interest writ petition which lacks bona fides, lack of particulars satisfying the requirements of a PIL, deserves to be dismissed with costs. Having regard to decisions considered in Mythri Residents Association v. Secretary, Tripunithura Municipality and Others, [2019 KHC 832], it has been summarised by the journal thus:
"(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.
Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 18 Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.
(9) The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process.
(10) Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened by arrears.
(11) Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes.
(12) This Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved.
(13) Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. (14) It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. (15) This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. (16) There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. (17) Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process.
(18) This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law.
(19) This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services.
(20) Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office.
WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 19(21) Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. (22) Courts protect the rule of law.
(23) There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space.
15. Going through the pleadings and material on record, in particular Exhibit-P4 representation, instant writ petition cannot be treated as a Public Interest Litigation.
In the light of the above discussion and decisions, the instant writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv JUDGE
WP(C).No.14869 OF 2020 20
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH
DATED 5.10.2019 ISSUED TO M/S.EDEN GARDEN.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT EVIDENCING
THE ONLINE PROCESSING DETAILS OF THE
APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR CONSENT
TO OPERATE.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.2536/2002/H&FWD DATED 21.10.2002.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
20.4.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.PCB/T4/115/97/A DATED 9.4.2013.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) 2/2017 DATED
4.11.2017 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.PCB/HO/CIRCULAR-01/03/2017A DATED
10.10.2017 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRASLANTION.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.PCB/HO/CIRCULAR-1.3.2017 DATED
27.11.2017 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRASLANTION.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.PCB/HO/FEE
AMENDMENT/965/2014 DATED 15.2.2018.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.PCB/T4/115/97 DATED 8.11.18 ALONG WITH
ENGLISH TRASLANTION.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.PCB/HO/CIRCULAR-1/3/17 DATED
21.11.2018 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRASLANTION.