Kerala High Court
Abhilash C.G vs State Of Kerala on 9 June, 2021
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 1300 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
1 ABHILASH C.G., AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAN, CHEMPANPURAYIDATHIL,
PERUMPANKUTHU, MANAKULAM.P.O,
ADIMALI, IDUKKI-685565.
2 MAYA THANKACHAN, AGED 25 YEARS
W/O.ABHILASH, CHEMPANPURAYIDATHIL,
PERUMPANKUTHU, MANAKULAM.P.O, ADIMALI,
IDUKKI-685565, FROM KURATHIKUDY, KURATHI,
ANAKULAM.P.O, MANNAMKANDAM, ADIMALI,
IDUKKI-685561.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE MATHEW
SMT.ELSA DENNY PINDIS
SRI.DIPU JAMES
SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.PRAVEEN S.
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,SCHEDULED TRIBES
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI-685608.
3 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, MUNNAR,
IDUKKI-685612.
4 FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
RANGE OFFICE, MANKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT,-685561.
5 THE TRIBAL WELFARE OFFICER,
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
IDUKKI-685612.
6 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ADIMALI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685561.
W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-2-:
7 SOBHA, AGED 46 YEARS
D/O.PARAMAN, KADAKUDI TRIBAL SETTLEMENT,
MACHIPLAVU.P.O, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE,
DEVIKULAM TALUK, ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685561.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.N.K.SHYJU
SRI.DEEPAK RAJ
SMT.ARCHANA MITHRAN O.K.
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FORESTS)- SRI SANDESH RAJA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09.04.2021, THE COURT ON 09.06.2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-3-:
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who are husband and wife, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 to 5 not to interfere with the disputes between the petitioners and the 7 th respondent. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 6th respondent Station House Officer, Adimali Police Station, to provide adequate and effective protection to their life and property, from the 7th respondent and her men. The interim relief sought for is an order directing the 6 th respondent Station House Officer to provide adequate and effective protection to the life and property of the petitioners and their family, from the 7 th respondent and her men.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 2 nd petitioner belongs to Muthuvan Community, which is recognised as a Schedule Tribe community in the State of Kerala. The 7 th respondent is a relative of the 2 nd petitioner. The 7th respondent is a resident/occupant of properties in Kadakuzhy Tribal Settlement, in Devikulam Taluk, Idukki District. She was in possession of nearly 4.50 Acres of land in and around the tribal settlement. As the 7th W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-4-:
respondent was not in a position to cultivate that land and was in need of money, she approached the petitioners and sought their assistance. The 1st petitioner is an agriculturist, who is recognised as an expert in the field of cultivation of cardamom. At the request of the 7th respondent, the petitioners agreed to cultivate the land and took possession of that land. It has been nearly two years that the petitioners were put in possession of the land. Now attempts are being made to oust the petitioners from that land, on account of the fact that the 2nd petitioner married out of community. The petitioners had spent large amounts to cultivate the land and it is about to start yielding. Large amounts were given to the 7 th respondent, who influenced other respondents and started attempts to take possession of the land from the petitioners. Though the petitioners sought assistance and help from the 6th respondent Station House Officer, Adimaly Police Station, no steps are being taken to redress their grievance. The petitioners are not able to seek the assistance of the official respondents, especially the 5 th respondent Tribal Welfare Officer, since it is under his directions that the respondents are attempting to evict the petitioners from the land in question. The possession of the land by the petitioners is W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-5-:
not in dispute. If the petitioners are ousted from the land, large amounts spent by them will be lost, which will lead to unjust enrichment of the 7th respondent. In the above circumstances, protection from the 7th respondent and her men is essential and the illegality on the part of the respondents is to be curtailed.
3. On 18.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 6. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 7 th respondent, returnable by 21.01.2021. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. This Court passed an interim order, whereby the 6 th respondent Station House Officer was directed to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of the petitioners or the 7th respondent.
4. On 21.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Special Government Pleader sought time to get instructions and the matter was adjourned to 29.01.2021. As per Office Note dated 20.01.2021, the 7th respondent signed notice and service of notice on her is complete.
W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-6-:
5. On 29.01.2021, the learned counsel for the 7 th
respondent sought time to file counter affidavit and two weeks' time was granted. The learned Government Pleader was directed to file statement before 16.02.2021. On 16.02.2021, the learned Government Pleader sought further time to file statement. The learned counsel for the 7th respondent also sought further time to file counter affidavit. This Court granted two weeks' time for filing statement/counter affidavit.
6. On 03.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, it was noticed that none has filed vakalat for the 7 th respondent. The learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that the 7th respondent is a member of Scheduled Tribe community and the attempt of the petitioners is to grab the land of the said respondent, who belongs to the lowest strata of the society. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that statement of the concerned Forest Official shall be placed on record before the next posting date. Therefore, this Court directed Registry to verify whether anyone has filed vakalat on behalf of the 7 th respondent and adjourned the matter to 08.03.2021.
W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-7-:
7. As per Office Note dated 04.03.2021, no vakalat has been filed for the 7th respondent. On 08.03.2021, the 7th respondent entered appearance through Adv.N.K.Shyju and sought time to file vakalat and counter affidavit. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to 15.03.2021. On 15.03.2021, Registry was directed to keep the notice served on the 7 th respondent and also the report of the Special Messenger in safe custody of Registrar (Judicial). The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the statement of the 3rd respondent Divisional Forest Officer will be placed on record within three days. The learned counsel for the 7 th respondent sought further time to file counter affidavit. Therefore, this Court adjourned the matter to 19.03.2021.
8. On 19.03.2021, the learned Special Government Pleader filed a statement on behalf of the 4 th respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, wherein it is stated that, the property in question is having the status of reserved forest, which is known to the petitioners, which was willfully suppressed in the writ petition, only for the purpose of securing an interim order. The petitioners have filed the writ petition, without producing any documents of title of the land, which is stated to be in their W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-8-:
possession. The 7th respondent, who was originally a resident of Companykkudi Tribal Settlement of Mankulam Village, married one from Muthuvan Hamlet of Kattamudi Tribal Settlement of Mannamkandam Village. She is now residing in Kattamudi Tribal Settlement. She is in possession of about 5 Acres of land in forest area, near Companykkudi Tribal Settlement, which is being cultivated for the last 10 years. She cultivated the said land with cardamom and engaged some workers for that purpose. The land is currently located outside tribal settlement boundary. The legal status of the land is 'forest'. The 7th respondent has no possession over the said land, prior to the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and as such, it cannot be recommended for granting rights under the said Act. The 1st petitioner belongs to OBC category. The petitioners, who are residing outside the tribal hamlet, are actually the workers engaged in the land, for one year. Now they are illegally possessing that land and claiming rights over it. The area occupied is inside Mankulam proposed reserve. The status of the land is 'reserved forest', as per G.O.(P)No.25/2007/ F&WLD dated 16.05.2007 [Annexure R4(a)]. The 2 nd petitioner is a W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-9-:
Scheduled Tribe from Kurathykkudi Tribal Settlement of Mannamkandam Village. The petitioners have no right to cultivate crops or settle in Mankulam proposed reserve. The agreement, if any, between the petitioners and the 7 th respondent over the land illegally possessed by the 7 th respondent, by itself is illegal. The 7 th respondent, who is an illiterate tribal woman, is being cheated by the petitioners, by occupying the land in her possession, in disguise as agricultural labourers. In the writ petition, it is mentioned that the 7th respondent is a resident of Kadakuzhy Tribal Settlement. No such settlement exists in Devikulam Taluk. She originally belonged to Companykkudy Tribal Settlement. The 1st petitioner is using the tribal background of the 2nd petitioner for illegally encroaching the forest land near Companykkudi Tribal Settlement. Now, the 7 th respondent has requested respondents 4 and 5 to evict the petitioners from the said land. The petitioners occupied the land last year. They are not allowing the 7 th respondent and her family members to enter upon that land.
9. In Para.7 of the statement filed on behalf of the 4 th respondent, it is alleged that, the 7 th respondent has stated before W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-10-:
the forest officials that she is not aware of the contents of the writ petition. Para.7 of the statement reads thus;
"7. It is stated by the 7th respondent that she was not at all aware the contents of the writ petition. She is an illiterate tribal woman, not having any knowledge of the writ petition filed against her. The 1st petitioner is from a literate well off family, who got land in Perumpankuth area of Mankulam village. The petitioners have no right to occupy land inside Mankulam proposed reserve. 1st petitioner is using the tribal background of 2nd petitioner to illegally possess the land. The 7th respondent has represented to this respondent for evicting the petitioners from the above said land. A true copy of the representation dated 01.03.2021 given by the respondent in person is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(b). This respondent has taken a statement from the 7 th respondent at the time of submitting the representation. A true copy of the statement given by the 7th respondent to this respondent is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(c)."
10. In the statement filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, it is stated that, since the area is legally reserved forest, the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 have application to the land in question. The process of giving title to the tribes residing in Companykkudi Tribal Settlement, under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, is in progress. The land in question will not come under the W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-11-:
purview of the said Act. The area will be evicted after the proclamation of final order by the District Level Committee constituted under the said Act. The petitioners are trying to explore the ignorance and illiteracy of the 7 th respondent. They cheated the 7th respondent by illegally possessing forest land inside Mankulam proposed reserve. The action of the petitioners is against Section 27(1)(e)(i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.
11. On 19.03.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought time to file reply affidavit. While ordering the writ petition to be listed on 24.03.2021, for further consideration, this Court has made it clear that the interim order dated 18.01.2021 directing the 6th respondent Station House Officer to take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, will not enable the petitioners to occupy any land inside Mankulam proposed reserve.
12. On 19.03.2021, the 7th respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that, she is a close relative of the 2 nd petitioner. She holds around 4.5 Acres of land at Kadakuzhi Tribal Settlement. The 2nd petitioner married the 1st petitioner, who does not belong to tribal community. Ever since the marriage, they have W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-12-:
been pursuing agricultural operations together. The land of the 7 th respondent was not subjected to aggressive cultivation and was lying barren for want of funds and since there was no one to look after the agricultural operations. The 7 th respondent was in need of urgent money for personal needs. The petitioners had approached the 7th respondent with a proposal to allow them to cultivate her property with cardamom, for a period of 10 years, and offered an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- in return. She accepted the proposal and received the said amount from the petitioners, under an agreement executed before a Notary Public at Adimaly, on 11.10.2019. The petitioners cultivated the land with cardamom and improved the property. As the 1st petitioner is not from a tribal community, there were objection from the tribes in the locality. They have in turn influenced the Tribal Welfare Officer to pressurise the petitioners to leave the settlement area. They forced the 7 th respondent to file a complaint against the petitioners seeking surrender of the property back to her. Later, the Forest Officials came and told the 7 th respondent that unless the petitioners are ousted from the property, they will deprive her property. The petitioners have taken a stand that they have invested Rs.15,00,000/- for improving the W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-13-:
property and they can return the property only on payment of that amount. A few days later, the 7 th respondent received notice in this writ petition, which she entrusted to her son-in-law, to pursue the matter by engaging a lawyer. Thereafter, she was taken to Adimaly by her daughter and son-in-law. She executed vakalat before the same Notary Public, who attested the aforesaid agreement dated 11.10.2019. Thereafter, her son-in-law arranged a lawyer for her, before this Court.
13. In Para.6 of the counter affidavit, the 7th respondent has stated that, few days after the receipt of notice in this writ petition, she was called to the Forest Office, Mankulam. The officer present there told her to give a written complaint against the petitioners, alleging that they have trespassed into her property and are occupying unauthorisedly. As she told the officer about her ignorance and inability to draft a complaint, he wrote something on a rough paper, demanding her to write it down in another paper, in the same format. Thus, she did it as demanded by the Forest Officials. Later, she came to know that the draft of the complaint given to her by the Forest Officials is against true facts and suppressing the legitimate arrangements made between her and W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-14-:
the petitioners. The document marked as Ext.R7(a) is stated to be the draft model complaint handed over to the 7 th respondent by the Forest Official. Believing the words of the Forest Official as true and genuine, she submitted a complaint. In the counter affidavit of the 7th respondent, it is stated that the petitioners are improving and cultivating the land in question, without any hindrance and objections from her part.
14. On 24.03.2021, the petitioners have filed reply affidavit to the statement filed on behalf of the 4 th respondent and also to the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent, stating that, there is no suppression of material facts, as alleged in the statement filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. It was under compelling circumstances that they have approached this Court, even without filing representation, as harassment was meted out by the Forest Officials and also the officials of the Tribal Welfare Department. The subject land over which they are effecting cultivation is in the possession of the 7th respondent and that fact is admitted by the 4th respondent in the statement. The petitioners were made to believe that the land over which they are effecting cultivation is part of tribal lands and not reserved forest, as contended in the statement.
W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-15-:
The 7th respondent was in possession of nearly 4.5 Acres of land, which was not developed or cultivated, which is situated in the local area called 'Karimkad'. When she required amount, it was advanced by the petitioners. She undertook that the petitioners can keep the land, develop it, take yield, and return her the land after the specified time. The petitioners were made to believe that the said land is also included in the tribal settlement and that, she is entitled to declaration of rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The information, if any, passed by the 7 th respondent to the 4th respondent is also false and incorrect, which is clear from the averments in the counter affidavit filed by her. The 7 th respondent, for evicting the petitioners from the land and for causing severe loss to them, is colluding with the official respondents. Annexure R4(a) does not reveal that the area where the subject land is situated falls within the area covered by it. The petitioners are not coolie workers or labourers engaged by the 7 th respondent. They have not made any attempt to mislead this Court or encroach upon any forest land, as alleged. In Para.6 of the statement, the 4 th respondent has admitted the possession of the subject land by the W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-16-:
7th respondent and her family members. The petitioners never made any attempt to possess the said land illegally. They are not occupying any land inside Mankulam proposed reserve. The Forest Officials and the officials of Tribal Welfare Department are wreaking vengeance against the petitioners, under the guise of protecting the interest of the 7th respondent, taking undue advantage of their official powers and exploiting her illiteracy.
15. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that, the document produced as Ext.R7(a), along with the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent, speaks volumes about the highhanded attempts of Forest Officials. The genesis of that document and the circumstances in which it came into the hands of the 7 th respondent have to be probed into, in order to expose the mischief and conspiracy behind it. The paper on which draft complaint is written is not otherwise available to a person like the 7 th respondent, as the same is an official format used exclusively by Forest Officials. In such circumstances, the original of the said document is to be made available for a detailed probe as to its maker and its purpose. Mere perusal of Ext.R7(a) along with Annexures R4(b) and R4(c), which do not bear a date, is enough to unearth the fraud and malafides W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-17-:
behind the present allegation raised in the statement filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. The contention in Para.9 of the said statement that the petitioners are encroachers is also false. Even the 7th respondent has no such grievance and the averments contained in Paras.4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the 7 th respondent reveal the entire facts and speaks volumes.
16. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 6 and also the learned counsel for the 7th respondent.
17. In this writ petition filed on 15.01.2021, the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 to 5, namely, the Forest Officials and the Tribal Welfare Officer, not to interfere with the dispute between the petitioners and the 7 th respondent, in relation to nearly 4.50 Acres of land possessed by the 7th respondent in and around Kadakuzhy Tribal Settlement. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 6th respondent Station House Officer to provide adequate and effective protection to their life and property, from the 7 th respondent and her men.
W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-18-:
18. In the writ petition, it is stated that, the petitioners have been put in possession of the said land, by the 7 th respondent, for cultivation of cardamom, for nearly two years. The 7 th respondent influenced respondents 3 to 5 and started attempts to take possession of the land from them. Under the above circumstances, protection from the 7th respondent and her men is essential.
19. In the statement filed on behalf of the 4 th respondent Forest Range Officer, Mankulam, it is stated that, the property in question is having the status of ' reserved forest', situated near Companykkudi Tribal Settlement, which is being cultivated with cardamom by the 7th respondent, for the last 10 years. The said land is currently located outside the tribal settlement boundary. The 7th respondent has no possession over the said land, prior to the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and as such, the land cannot be recommended for granting rights under the said Act. Relying on Annexure R4(a) notification dated 16.05.2007, the 4 th respondent would point out that the status of the land in question, which is situated inside Mankulam proposed reserve, is 'reserved forest'. Since the said land will not come under the ambit of the Act W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-19-:
of 2006 for Recognition of Forest Rights, the area will be evicted after the proclamation of the final order by the District Level Committee constituted under the said Act. In the statement, it is alleged that the petitioners, who are residing outside the tribal hamlet, are actually the workers engaged in the land, for one year.
20. In the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent, it is stated that she holds around 4.5 Acres of land at Kadakuzhy Tribal Settlement. Under an agreement executed before a Notary Public at Adimali, on 11.10.2019, the petitioners have cultivated the land with cardamom and improved the property. As the 1 st petitioner is not from a tribal community, there were objections from tribes in the locality. They have in turn influenced the Tribal Welfare Officer to pressurise the petitioners to leave the settlement area and forced the 7th respondent to file a complaint against the petitioners seeking surrender of the property back to her.
21. The petitioners have filed reply affidavit, wherein, it is stated that the land in which they are effecting cultivation is in the possession of the 7th respondent and that fact is admitted by the 4 th respondent in the statement. The petitioners were made to believe that the land over which they are effecting cultivation is part of W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-20-:
tribal lands and not reserved forest. Nearly 4.5 Acres of land in possession of the 7th respondent is situated in the local area called 'Karimkad'. The petitioners were made to believe that the said land is also included in the tribal settlement and that, she is entitled to declaration of rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
22. The Act of 2006 for Recognition of Forest Rights has been made to recognise and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded; to provide for a frame work for recording the forest rights so vested and the nature of evidence required for such recognition and vesting in respect of the forest land.
23. Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act defines 'forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes' to mean the members of the community of the Scheduled Tribes, who primarily reside in and who depend on the forest or forest lands for bona fide livelihood needs and includes the Scheduled Tribe pastoralist communities. Clause (d) of Section 2 defines 'forest land' to mean land of any description falling within W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-21-:
any forest area and includes unclassified forest, undemarcated forest, existing or deemed forest, protected forest, reserved forest, sanctuaries and national parks.
24. Section 3 of the Act deals with forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. Section 4 of the Act deals with recognition of, and vesting of, forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. As per sub-section (3) of Section 4, the recognition and vesting of forest rights under this Act to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and to other traditional forest dwellers in relation to any State or Union Territories in respect of forest land and their habitat shall be subject to the condition that such a Scheduled Tribes or tribal communities or other traditional forest dwellers had occupied the forest land before 13th day of December, 2005.
25. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, one of the reliefs sought for by the petitioners is a writ of mandamus commanding the 6th respondent Station House Officer, Adimali Police Station, to provide adequate and effective protection to their life and property, from the 7 th respondent and her men. The petitioners have also sought for an W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-22-:
interim order to that effect. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 7th respondent who is a resident of Kadakuzhy Tribal Settlement was in possession of nearly 4.5 Acres of land in and around that tribal settlement, which is presently in occupation of the petitioners, for nearly two years, for the purpose of cultivation of cardamom. In the writ petition, it is alleged that, now, the 7th respondent is attempting to oust the petitioners from that land, who influenced other respondents and started attempts to take possession of the land from the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners seek protection from the 7th respondent and her men.
29. Though, going by the averments in the writ petition, the dispute between the petitioners and the 7 th respondent centers around a property in and around Kadakuzhy Tribal Settlement, which was in possession of the 7 th respondent, the writ petition is completely lacking proper description of that property, so as to identify the same. As per the statement filed by the learned Special Government Pleader on 19.03.2021, on behalf of the 4 th respondent, the property in question, which is currently located outside the boundary of Companykkudi Tribal Settlement, is having the status of 'reserved forest', which is known to the petitioners, W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-23-:
which was willfully suppressed in the writ petition, only for the purpose of securing an interim order. The 7th respondent has no possession over the said land prior to the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and as such, it cannot be recommended for granting rights under the said Act and that, the area will be evicted after the proclamation of the final order by the District Level Committee constituted under that Act. The area occupied is inside Mankulam proposed reserve and the status of the land as per Annexure R4(a) notification dated 16.05.2007 is 'reserved forest'. Therefore, the stand taken in the statement filed on behalf of the 4th respondent is that, the 7th respondent has no possession or occupation of the land prior to 13.12.2005 and as such, she is not entitled to declaration of rights under the Act of 2006. On 24.03.2021, the petitioners have filed reply affidavit, wherein it is stated that, they were made to believe that the said land is also included in the tribal settlement and that, the 7 th respondent is entitled to declaration of rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The above stand taken in the reply affidavit makes it W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-24-:
explicitly clear that, the petitioners were aware of the fact that the land in question falls under the definition of 'forest land' in clause
(d) of Section 2 of the said Act, in respect of which a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe can seek recognition and vesting of forest rights, only if he/she had occupied that land before 13.12.2005. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court. Moreover, alleging any threat to law and order in the locality, in connection with any dispute between the petitioners and the 7th respondent in relation to the aforesaid property, the petitioners have not chosen to approach the 6th respondent Station House Officer by filing a representation seeking police protection.
30. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-25-:
may be, the court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court held further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.
31. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 7 SCC 639] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, it is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that as a rule relief not W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-26-:
founded on the pleadings should not be granted. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice.
32. In St. George Tabore Church and others v. State of Kerala and others [(2021 (1) KHC SN 1] this Court held that, in order to seek police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to first approach the concerned Station House Officer with a proper complaint against those who are causing threat to the life and/or the property of the petitioner. Since a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a failure on the part of that officer concerned to discharge W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-27-:
the statutory obligation, in the complaint filed before the concerned Station House Officer, which is foundation upon which a writ petition seeking police protection has been built, the petitioner has to disclose his legal right to compel performance of a statutory duty cast upon that authority. The said complaint should contain necessary pleadings. In case there is any failure on the part of the officer concerned in discharging the statutory duty or obligation, the petitioner can approach this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate reliefs, in which the State of Kerala, the officer concerned and also those who are causing threat to the life and/or the property of the petitioner, as alleged in the said complaint, are to be arrayed as respondents.
33. In the instant case, going by the averments in the writ petition, the dispute between the petitioners and the 7th respondent centers around a property in and around Kadakuzhy Tribal Settlement, which was in possession of the 7 th respondent. The writ petition is completely lacking proper description of that property and even proper averments as to the alleged threat to law and order in the locality, in connection with any dispute between the W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-28-:
petitioners and the 7th respondent in relation to that property. Moreover, alleging threat to law and order in the locality, in connection with any dispute between the petitioners and the 7 th respondent, the petitioners have not chosen to approach the 6 th respondent Station House Officer by filing a representation seeking police protection. In the writ petition the petitioners have not disclosed their legal right to compel performance of any statutory duty cast upon the 6 th respondent and also the alleged threat to their life from the side of the 7 th respondent and her men, in order to seek police protection.
34. In the writ petition, it is alleged that, the 7 th respondent, who influenced respondents 3 to 5, started attempts to take possession of the land in question from the petitioners. Though the petitioners sought assistance and help from the 6th respondent Station House Officer, no steps are being taken to redress their grievance. It is alleged further that, the petitioners are not able to seek assistance of the 5th respondent Tribal Welfare Officer, since it is under his direction that respondents 3 and 4 are attempting to evict them from the land in question.
W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-29-:
35. In P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda
Theertha Padar [(2006) 4 SCC 501] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the 1st respondent therein claimed himself to be a Sanyasi in the tradition of 'Sree Chattambi Swamy Thiruvadikal' and Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan of Parama Bhattara Gurukula Seva Sangham, known as 'Vadayampadi Asharamam'. He filed a suit in the Munsiff's Court, Kolencherry as O.S.No.71 of 2000 for a declaration that he was entitled to continue in the said capacity and he was not allowed to discharge his duties attached to the said office in terms of the purported order dated 20.01.1996 of Kailasanatha Theertha Padar. The said suit was dismissed for default. An application for restoration of the said suit was filed which was also dismissed. In relation to the affairs of the trust a suit as O.S.No.30 of 2002 is pending in the Munsiff's Court, Kolencherry. The said suit has been filed by one G. Parameswaran Nair, founder member of Vadayampadi Asharamam questioning the aforementioned purported resolution dated 07.01.2001. Brahmasree Kailasanatha Theertha Padar filed an interlocutory application for getting himself impleaded as a party, alleging that as per the bye laws, he had admittedly been serving in the said W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-30-:
capacity since 1996 and, thus, in law continues to be the Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan. The said applicant as also the 1st respondent before the Apex Court are parties in O.S. No. 30 of 2002. Though O.S.No.71 of 2000 filed by the 1 st respondent was dismissed, he filed W.P.(C)No.16047 of 2004 before this Court praying for police protection. A Division Bench of this Court went into the question as to whether the 1st respondent was entitled to hold the office of Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan for the purpose of issuing an appropriate direction as regards grant of police protection. This Court opined that the State and the police officials have got a legal obligation to give protection to the life and properties of the appellant upon arriving at a finding of fact that he was entitled to hold the said office. Aggrieved by that judgment, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
36. In P.R. Murlidharan the Apex Court noticed that the construction of the trust and the rights and obligations thereunder were in question. The 1st respondent filed a suit in that behalf, which was dismissed. In terms of Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 another suit would not be maintainable at his instance. Another suit, i.e., O.S.No. 30 of 2002 filed by one G. W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-31-:
Parameswaran Nair is pending in the Munsiff's Court. The High Court, despite noticing the said fact, sought to usurp the jurisdiction of the civil court, and determined the contentious issues which were required to be proved in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is one thing to say that in a given case a person may be held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat perception, but it is another thing to say that he is entitled thereto for holding an office and discharging certain functions when his right to do so is open to question. A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which were beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction as it also involved determination of disputed questions of fact. The 1st respondent who sought to claim a status was required to establish the same in a court of law in an appropriate proceeding. He for one reason or the other, failed to do so. The provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure stare on his face. He, therefore, could not have filed a writ petition for getting the selfsame issues determined in his favour, which he could not do even by filing a suit. Indeed the jurisdiction of the writ court W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-32-:
is wide while granting relief to a citizen of India so as to protect his life and liberty as adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution, but while doing so it could not collaterally go into that question, determination whereof would undoubtedly be beyond its domain. What was necessary for determination of the question arising in the writ petition was not the interpretation of the documents alone, but it required adduction of oral evidence as well. Such evidence was necessary for the purpose of explaining the true nature of the deed of trust, as also the practice followed by this trust. In any event, the impleading applicant in O.S.No.30 of 2002 has raised a contention that he alone was ordained to hold the said office as per the bye laws of the trust. The qualification of the 1 st respondent to hold the office was also in question. In this view of the matter, the Apex Court held that such disputed questions could not have been gone into by the High Court in a writ proceeding. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is wide and plenary. In a case of this nature, a writ proceeding cannot be a substitute for a civil suit. For the said reasons, the Apex Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. However, the appeal was allowed with the observation that, in the event the 1 st respondent W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-33-:
feels that he as a person should receive protection to his life, he may make an appropriate representation to the Superintendent of Police, who after causing an inquiry made in this behalf may pass an appropriate order as is permissible in law.
37. In P.R. Murlidharan, P.K. Balasubramaniam J in his concurring judgment observed that, a writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-34-:
Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations. On the facts of the case on hand, the learned Judge noticed that, various disputed questions arose based on a deed of trust and the facts pleaded by the writ petitioner and controverted by the other side. The High Court should have normally directed the writ petitioner to have his rights adjudicated upon, in an appropriate suit in a civil court. The fact that a writ petitioner may be barred from approaching the civil court, in view of Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or some other provisions, is no ground for the High Court to take upon itself, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the duty to adjudicate on the civil rights of parties for the purpose of deciding whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to the police authorities for the protection of the alleged rights of the writ petitioner. A writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to the W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-35-:
person of a writ petitioner can be issued, when the court is satisfied that there is a threat to his person and the authorities have failed to perform their duties and it is different from granting relief for the first time to a person either to allegedly protect his right to property or his right to an office, especially when the pleadings themselves disclose that disputed questions are involved. As rightly pointed out in the judgment, the High Court was in error in proceeding to adjudicate on the rights and obligations arising out of the trust deed merely based on the affidavits and the deed itself. The High Court should not have undertaken such an exercise on the basis that the right of the writ petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution is sought to be affected by the actions of the contesting respondents and their supporters and that can be prevented by the issue of the writ of mandamus prayed for. A writ for 'police protection' so called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order.
W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-36-:
38. In George Mirante v. State of Kerala [(1990) 2 KLT 89] this Court held that, in matters involving civil rights, or disputes regarding title and possession over property, it is not proper for this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution with an order for police protection. Police cannot be made the adjudicators of such disputes inter se between the parties, either regarding possession of property or regarding boundaries or regarding easements or the like. These are matters essentially within the domain of the civil courts. The parties should approach those courts and seek redress. Police does not have the right to decide on such disputes, nor is it proper or competent for them to do so. They do not also have the machinery for the purpose. It is outside the limits of the duties which are cast on them, which is to prevent breach of peace or commission of cognisable offences, and to preserve law and order.
39. In George Mirante this Court held further that, it will be totally against the rule of law if the right of the police is to be used in favour of one party against another without an adjudication by any appropriate authority of the rights of either side. In all such cases, the proper remedy, for a party feeling aggrieved, is to W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-37-:
approach the civil court for the establishment of his rights, and seek appropriate injunctive reliefs against the offending party, and if any such orders are attempted to be violated, to seek their enforcement by the civil court itself. The civil court has the power in such cases to enforce its orders under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with police aid, if necessary, as held by this Court in Mohammed v. Mohammed Ali [1986 KLT 134]. When such remedies are available, this Court should be loathe to direct interference by the police or to afford protection, though this Court is not powerless to act in appropriate cases to preserve the rights to property. But such interference should be made sparingly, and not in cases where the parties have an effective remedy or relief by resort to the civil court itself.
40. In the instant case, the specific stand taken in the statement filed on behalf of the 4 th respondent is that, since the area is legally 'reserved forest', the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 have application to the land in question. The process of giving title to the tribes residing in Companykkudi Tribal Settlement, under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, is in progress.
W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-38-:
The 7th respondent has no possession over that land prior to 13.12.2005. Since the land in question will not come under the purview of the said Act, the area will be evicted after the proclamation of final order by the District Level Committee constituted under the said Act. Further, the action of the petitioners is against Section 27(1)(e)(i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.
Though, in the writ petition it is alleged that the 7 th respondent, who influenced respondents 3 to 5 started attempts to take possession of the land in question from the petitioners, the specific stand taken in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the 7 th respondent is that, the petitioners are improving and cultivating the land in question, without any hindrance and objections from her part.
41. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, this writ petition, filed under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the police authorities to give protection to the petitioners, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It would be an abuse of process for the petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the police authorities to protect W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-39-:
their claimed possession of the property in question, without first establishing the right of the 7th respondent for declaration of rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 in an appropriate forum. As already noticed, the stand taken in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners makes it explicitly clear that, they were aware of the fact that the land in question falls under the definition of 'forest land' in clause (d) of Section 2 of the said Act, in respect of which a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe can seek recognition and vesting of forest rights, only if he/she had occupied that land before 13.12.2005. The petitioners have chosen to file this writ petition with twisted facts and also suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court. Therefore, they are not entitled for police protection, as sought for in this writ petition.
42. Another relief sought for in this writ petition is a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 to 5 not to interfere with the disputes between the petitioners and the 7th respondent in relation to the land in question.
43. As already noticed, the stand taken in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners makes it explicitly clear that, they were W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-40-:
aware of the fact that the land in question falls under the definition of 'forest land' in clause (d) of Section 2 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, in respect of which a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe can seek recognition and vesting of forest rights, only if he/she had occupied that land before 13.12.2005. The specific stand taken in the statement filed on behalf of the 4 th respondent is that the property in question, which is currently located outside the boundary of Companykkudi Tribal Settlement, is having the status of reserved forest. The 7th respondent has no possession over the said land prior to the enactment of the Act of 2006 for Recognition of Forest Rights [prior to 13.12.2005] and as such, she is not entitled to declaration of rights under the said Act. The area occupied is inside Mankulam proposed reserve and the status of the land as per Annexure R4(a) notification dated 16.05.2007 is 'reserved forest'. Since the land in question will not come under the purview of the said Act, the area will be evicted after the proclamation of final order by the District Level Committee constituted under the said Act. Further, the action of the petitioners is against Section 27(1)(e)(i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.
W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-41-:
44. Section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act deals with penalties for trespass or damage in reserved forest and acts prohibited in such forests. As per the said provision, any person who in a reserved forest or in a land proposed to be constituted a reserved forest cultivates or clears or breaks up any land for cultivation or for any other purpose or puts up any shed or other structures or plants, trees, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but may extend to 5 years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees but may extend to five thousand rupees in addition to such compensation for damage done to the forest as the convicting court may direct to be paid.
45. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-42-:
and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction.
46. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309] the Apex Court held that, under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law.
47. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 280] the Apex Court held that, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-43-:
is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice.
48. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.
49. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, respondents 3 and 4, who are the Forest Officials, cannot be restrained by way of writ of mandamus from enforcing the provisions under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 or that under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Similarly, the 5 th respondent Tribal Welfare Officer cannot be restrained by way of writ of mandamus from discharging his statutory functions or duties. Therefore, the W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-44-:
petitioners are not entitled for writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 to 5 not to interfere with the disputes between the petitioners and the 7th respondent in relation to the land in question.
50. Though various allegations and counter allegations are raised, which center around Annexure-R4(b) complaint, Annexure-
R4(c) statement stated to have been made by the 7 th respondent and also Annexure-R7(a) complaint stated to have been drafted by the Forest Officials in Mankulam, this Court need not go into all those disputed facts, in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the findings as above on the entitlement of the petitioners for the reliefs sought for.
51. On 19.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, it was pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader that on the strength of the interim order granted by this Court directing the 6th respondent Station House Officer to ensure that there is no law and order in the locality, at the instance of the petitioners or the 7 th respondent, the petitioners entered inside Mankulam proposed reserve. Therefore, this Court in the order dated 19.03.2021 had made it clear that, the interim W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-45-:
order of this Court dated 18.03.2021 directing the 6 th respondent Station House Officer to take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, will not enable the petitioners to occupy any land inside Mankulam proposed reserve.
52. As already noticed, though it is alleged in the writ petition that the 7th respondent, who influenced respondents 3 to 5 started attempts to take possession of the land in question from the petitioners, the specific stand taken paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent is that, the petitioners are improving and cultivating the land in question, without any hindrance and objections from her part. The petitioners, who were aware of the fact that the land in question falls under the definition of 'forest land' in clause (d) of Section 2 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, in respect of which a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe can seek recognition and vesting of forest rights, only if he/she had occupied that land before 13.12.2005, have chosen to file this writ petition with twisted facts and also suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court. This writ petition filed under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the police authorities to W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-46-:
give protection to the life and property of the petitioners, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the court.
53. As stated by Scrutton, L.J, in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 KB 486], an applicant who does not come with candid facts and 'clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the court with 'soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.
54. In Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449] the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppress relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. This rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-47-:
facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.
55. In Prestige Light the Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.
56. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that, this writ petition filed under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the police authorities to give protection to the life and property of the petitioners, with twisted facts and also suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court,is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the court, which is liable to be dismissed.
W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-48-:
57. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Though a writ petition of this nature deserves to be dismissed imposing exemplary cost, this Court refrain from doing so, taking into consideration the unprecedented situation of COVID-19 pandemic; however, deprecating in the strongest terms the conduct in filing this writ petition before this Court with twisted facts and also suppressing material facts.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE bkn/-
W.P.(C)No.1300 of 2021 :-49-:
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1300/2021
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE R4(a) TRUE COPY OF GO(P)NO.25/2007/F&WLD DATED
16.05.2007
ANNEXURE R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
01.03.2021 GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT IN
PERSON
ANNEXURE R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE
7TH RESPONDENT TO THIS RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R7(a): A PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DRAFTED BY
THE FOREST OFFICIALS MANKULAM.