Kerala High Court
B.Hamza vs Union Of India on 9 February, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:-
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/21ST BHADRA, 1935
W.P.(C).No.15237 of 2013 (S)
---------------------------------------------------
PETITIONER:-
---------------------
B.HAMZA, AGED 69 YEARS, SON OF MOHAMMED BAVA,
RESIDING AT 1/1328, K.B.JACOB ROAD, KOCHI - 682 001,
GENERAL SECRETARY,
COCHIN PORT LABOUR UNION (REGD.NO.287/69).
BY ADVS.SRI.SUKUMAR NAINAN OOMMEN
SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH
SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT
SRI.N.RAGHURAJ
SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN
SRI.M.A.ASIF
SRI.ARUN ANTONY.
RESPONDENTS:-
-------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING,
PARIVAHAN BHAVAN,SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. COCHIN PORT TRUST,
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST,
WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 009.
3. INDIA GATEWAY TERMINAL PRIVATE LTD. (IGTPL),
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ICTT VALLARPADAM SEZ, MULAVUKAD, ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN - 682 504.
4. COCHIN STEAMER AGENTS COMMISSION,
INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 003.
W.P.(C).NO.15237 OF 2013-S.
- 2 -
5. THE CHAIRMAN,
KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,
COCHIN PORT AREA COMMITTEE, DLB BUILDING,
WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 003.
R1 BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR
R2 BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOS (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
SRI.BINU MATHEW
SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS.
R3 BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.P.GOPINATH
SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
R4 BY ADVS.SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
SRI.K.ANAND (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN
R5 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.A.MAJEED.
R5 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.S. AJITH PRAKASH.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.09.2013, THE COURT ON 12-09-2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
W.P.(C).No.15237 of 2013 (S)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINESS TO BE FOLLOWED BY MAJOR
PORT TRUSTS FOR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN THE
MAJOR PORTS.
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD NOTE OF DISCUSSIONS HELD BY
THE CORE COMMITTEE WITH UNIONS ON 28.01.2005.
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT BY UNION &
MANAGEMENT BEFORE LABOUR COMMISSIONER ON 20.03.2005.
EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD NOTE OF BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS
OF PORT TRUST MANAGEMENT AND REPRESENTATIVES OF
TRADE UNIONS, ON 07.08.2010.
EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 09.02.2011
IN W.P.(C).3507 & 3774/2011.
EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS COURT
DATED 18.02.2011 IN W.A.224 & 240/2011.
EXHIBIT-P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER OF THIS COURT
DATED 17.06.2011 IN W.A.224 & 240/2011.
EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPEAL BEFORE THE
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION DATED 04/05/2012.
EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.T14/RT/2011-C
DATED 14.03.2012 ENCLOSING DETAILS OF THE CHANGES
IN THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT AFTER ACCEPTANCE
OF THE FINAL BID.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-
----------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE R2(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.PD-11015/1/2004-CoPT
DATED 9.9.2004 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF SHIPPING,
ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF
SHIPPING (PORT WING) TOP THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R2(b) TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER NO.T14/T-1232/2004-C
DATED 04.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (PORTS WING), NEW DELHI.
W.P.(C).NO.15237 OF 2013-S.
- 2 -
ANNEXURE R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD
ON 12.10.2004.
ANNEXURE R2(d) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.T14/T-1232/2004-C DATED
27.11.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, NEW DELHI.
ANNEXURE R2(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PD-11015/1/2004-CoPT
DATED 19.01.2005 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF SHIPPING,
ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF
SHIPPING (PORTS WING) TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
vku/
( true copy )
Manjula Chellur, C.J. &
K.Vinod Chandran, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.15237 of 2013-S
-----------------------------------------
Dated this, the 12th day of September, 2013
JUDGMENT
K.Vinod Chandran,J.
The petitioner, claiming to be a public spirited citizen of India, a political activist and trade unionist and representing a section of the labourers employed in the Cochin Port Trust, seeks the intervention of this Court through the above public interest litigation in the agreement executed between the 2nd respondent - Cochin Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as "CPT") and 3rd respondent - India Gateway Terminal Private Limited (IGTPL) dated 31.01.2005. The agreement executed in the year 2005 is for the construction of the International Container Transhipment Terminal (ICTT) at Vallarpadam on Build, Operate and Transfer (for short "BOT") terms. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
"(I) Issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for all the records leading to the Licence Agreement dated 31st January 2005; and also the Licence Agreement between the Licensor, namely, Board of Trustees of Cochin Port Trust; and the Licensee, namely, India Gateway Terminal Private Limited; WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 2 - (II) Issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for all records leading to Exhibit P8, viz., the amendments to Licence Agreement dated 31.01.2005 that have been incorporated after acceptance of the financial bid of the Licensee; and any other amendment to the above-said Licence Agreement that has been incorporated therein after acceptance of the financial bid of the Licensee; and quash and set aside all such amendments.
(III) Direct the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to compute within a stipulated time the revenue gain to the Licensee and the corresponding revenue loss to the Licensor that has accrued to them respectively on account of the amendments in Exhibit P8; and any other amendment to the above-said Licence Agreement dated 31.01.2005;
(IV) Direct the Licensee to refund to the Licensor within a stipulated time such amount determined by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to be revenue gain to the Licensee and the corresponding revenue loss to the Licensor respectively on account of the amendments in Exhibit P8; and any other amendment to the above-said Licence Agreement dated 31.01.2005 that has been incorporated after acceptance of the financial bid of the Licensee;
(V) Any other writ and relief that this Hon'ble Court would deem appropriate and proper in the interests of justice and equity".
WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 3 -
2. On a reading of the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner seems to have two contentions. One regarding the loss of labour that occurred by the construction of ICTT, which resulted in the Rajiv Gandhi Container Terminal (RGCT) operated at Willingdon Island being rendered redundant; by shifting of the container handling operation to ICTT. The second contention is the alleged loss caused to the exchequer by not following the guidelines prescribed at Exhibit P1 and making amendments to the agreement after acceptance of the initial bid; making fundamental changes resulting in huge loss to the public exchequer.
3. At the outset we notice that the public interest litigation cannot be a vehicle for agitating the labour disputes, if at all any, existing between the unions representing the workers and the CPT. It is also pertinent that a Memorandum of Settlement has been entered into between the parties at Exhibit P3 and the reliance placed on the record of discussions, Exhibit P2, by the learned counsel has absolutely no significance. In fact the entrepreneurs who were using the services of the CPT had earlier approached this Court seeking despatch of cargo lying in the Port to different destinations, which had been halted by reason of strike carried on by the workers and their WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 4 - unions. A learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the Government of India as also the State Government to take steps to address the issues raised by the different trade unions regarding loss of employment and also directed that for a period of three months the RGCT at Willingdon Island would be maintained by CPT and IGTPL. The same was challenged by IGTPL before a Division Bench, which, though having noticed the grievances of the employees, had, however, initially stayed the impugned direction to continue the operations at the RGCT at Willingdon Island, confining the direction to ensure shipment of the entire cargo lying in the RGCT at Willingdon Island. The writ petitions itself were called for by the Division Bench and by Exhibit P6A judgment, the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions were disposed of in terms of the earlier interim order aforementioned and the questions relating to labour dispute was left open to be agitated before the appropriate forums. It was also directed that the Regional Labour Commissioner could take appropriate action, in accordance with law, if found necessary. Hence, it cannot be an issue which could be agitated in the present public interest litigation. We, hence, do not refer to the various averments regarding the labour dispute made in the writ petition.
WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 5 -
4. The core issue, even according to the petitioner, is the legality and propriety of the 21 amendments incorporated in the Licence Agreements after acceptance of the financial bids of the interested parties. These amendments, according to the petitioner, conferred undue favours on the licensee at the cost of public exchequer and the amendments were essentially challenged as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution as also the provisions of the Indian Contract Act and the guidelines at Exhibit P1. Reference was first made to Exhibit P1, wherein guidelines to be followed by the Major Port Trust for private sector participation in the major ports were laid down. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the guidelines having not permitted a re-negotiation; after the acceptance of the financial bid, no amendments could be made to the agreement. In fact, on a reading of the guidelines, specifically item No.(6) in the inner-page 4 of the guidelines, we do not see any prohibition in the guidelines for re-negotiation or amendments to be made in the draft agreement enclosed along with the tender documents.
5. However, we notice that the issue has to be considered with respect to the specific amendments pointed out by the learned WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 6 - counsel for the petitioner. The offending amendments, according to the petitioner, have been revealed in Exhibit P8, which is a document received under the Right to Information Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out specific instances in the said document to urge the contention that loss has been caused to the public exchequer. We list out each of the specific amendments pointed out by the learned counsel.
(i) In Sl.No.4 (1.1) "Gross Revenue" was defined as all revenues earned by the Licensee from the project facilities and services in respect of container handling and associated activities, including ancillary revenues. The amendment brought in was to the effect specifying that income from interest, sale of assets, penalties or charges for delay which are not notified in the Scale of Rates as also damages of any kind and reimbursements of expenses incurred by the licensee shall not be included in the said definition. It is urged that the financial bid is on the royalty to be paid by the licensee to the licensor on the gross revenue and exclusion of certain heads of income as specified above would cause loss to the exchequer, since the same would not form part of the gross revenue on which the bid of 33.3% is computed.
WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 7 -
(ii) Under Sl.No.17 (5.2) with respect to payment of royalty, it is submitted that the revenues earned by the licensee from the levy of ground rent charges within the RGCT project site was amended as not forming part of the Gross Revenue for the purpose of royalty calculation, again giving undue advantage to the licensor by making compromises at the expense of the public exchequer.
(iii) Under Sl.No.19, again coming under 'royalty payments', the interest prescribed for delayed payments at the rate of 2% per month was reduced to1.25 % per month.
(iv) Then Sl.No.9 in Appendix-X was pointed out, to contend that the amendments made with respect to upfront payment is an addition involving financial implications, again causing loss to the public exchequer.
6. We specifically notice that except for the above amendments, the learned counsel has not pointed out any other portion in Exhibit P8 as being detrimental to the revenue of the licensor. In fact, after pointing out the above amendments, the learned counsel would strenuously urge that on the computation made by the petitioner, the above amendments would result in a loss of 100-120 crores. However, on our specific query as to how such WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 8 - amounts were arrived at, the learned counsel insisted that the petitioner is not willing to give any details. We cannot but deprecate the said conduct, especially when the petitioner has approached this Court urging public interest to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution so as to force our hand in interfering with a contract entered into between CPT and IGTPL. We also notice that the reliefs are couched in such a manner as to seek a writ of certiorari against agreements entered into on the basis of a public tender.
7. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent-CPT and in the context of the refusal of the learned counsel for the petitioner to furnish us with the details of computation of anticipated loss; arrived at by the petitioner, we are constrained to dispose of the matter on the basis of the available materials before us.
8. The agreement, which is the subject matter of the above writ petition, is dated 31.01.2005 between the CPT and IGTPL. Exhibit P8 document itself was received as early as on 14.03.2012. It is not clear as to why the petitioner has waited for more than one year after the receipt of the information under the Right to Information Act to approach this Court. However, in the circumstances of any real public interest being projected, the delay may not be very WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 9 - material and hence we do not delve upon this aspect. But, however, it has to be noticed that the ICTT has already been constructed and is in operation for a number of years when the above PIL has been filed seeking interference in the contract entered into by the CPT.
9. The ICTT project at Vallarpadam, as has been stated by the respondent-CPT in their statement, is an ambitious green field project which the Government of India and CPT have conceived in the early 1980s, which aims at saving the national export and import trade an extra cost of about 300 Dollars per container on account of their cargo being transhipped at the transhipment terminals in the region, viz., Colombo, Singapore, Dubai, etc. The implementation of the project took two decades and had undergone three rounds of bidding, the last of which resulted in a contract with the 3rd respondent-IGTPL. The offer of IGTPL at 33.3% was accepted, the same being the highest revenue offered on the Gross Revenue of the licensee. It was only after the Board resolved to take further course of action on the financial bid of the IGTPL and after obtaining the sanction of the Central Government, specifically the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways that the contract for development and operation of ICTT was awarded to M/s.Dubai Ports WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 10 - International (DPI) on BOT terms.
10. With respect to the amendments made, we notice that the CPT has a specific contention that as per the bid conditions, obligation of the licensee to develop the container terminal at Vallarpadam would commence once when the traffic at RGCT reaches the specified threshold limit of 4.00 lakhs Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) per annum. As per the bid conditions on such threshold limit not having reached within a period of 8= years, the licensee would have no obligation to construct the transhipment terminal, i.e., the ICTT at Vallarpadam. On the failure to touch the aforementioned target, the only obligation on the licensee is to handover the RGCT back to the CPT. This condition invited widespread criticism, even from the trade unions, and that the situation where the licensee consciously fails to achieve the said target was visualized. Then the operation of the RGCT and the profits therein for the 8= years would enure to the licensee without any further obligation to construct the transhipment terminal. It was in order to avoid such a contingency that the Government of India was informed of the need to make deviations in the tender conditions.
11. This early migration from RGCT definitely put the WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 11 - awardee of the contract in difficulties, since the implementation of the project would have to be commenced immediately without recourse to operation of the existing terminal; to assess the cost effectiveness of the transhipment terminal itself. The Letter of Intent (LoI) since did not conform to the original bid documents, the awardee had on their own addressed serious misgivings to the CPT, which had to be resolved satisfactorily through discussions. It was on the authority given by the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, as is evidenced by Annexure R2(a), that specific areas were identified, wherein the change in bid condition regarding early migration from RGCT had to be addressed effectively. From the discussions pursuant to Annexure R2(a), specific areas were identified with respect to payment of royalty, upfront payment, equipment revaluation and depreciation and additional berth allocation. The CPT then addressed the Ministry on the areas identified and assured the Ministry that on conclusion of the exercise of negotiation, the CPT would immediately revert to the Ministry for sanction, by Exhibit R2(d).
12. The Minutes of the meeting between the CPT and also the awardee has also been produced as Annexure R2(c), wherein the officials of the Department of Shipping were also present. The issues WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 12 - were segregated into two categories; one relating to Letter of Intent and the other relating to early migration to Vallarpadam. Subsequent to the said meeting, the CPT addressed the Ministry by Annexure R2
(d) dated 27.11.2004, wherein the addition or modification in the revised draft licence agreement was specifically forwarded for the consideration and sanction of the Ministry. The resolution of the Port Trust Board to approve the revised proposal submitted by the Dubai Port International and recommend the same to the Government of India for its final approval was also indicated. Annexure R2(e) is the letter to the Ministry dated 19.01.2005, referring to Annexure R2(d), approving the acceptance of the revised proposal.
13. There can be no dispute on the transparency and it cannot at all be alleged that the amendments made were surreptitiously; without the knowledge of the Government of India and without making a proper appraisal of the circumstances. What looms large is the major change made in the bid conditions with respect to the early migration to the Vallarpadam terminal. This necessitated the implementation of the project 8= years before what was contemplated in the tender conditions. We are perfectly in agreement with the CPT that this necessitated negotiations and amendments WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 13 - being made in the draft agreement attached to the tender published. In any event, even going by the specific averments, the tender had, as its accompaniment, only a "draft agreement", which words indicate that the same is not to be the final agreement and it is obvious that any contract, especially with financial and commercial implications; to the extent of the present one, necessitates negotiations even after the financial bid is accepted. The acceptance of the bid definitely indicates only the crossing of the threshold and the terms are to be reduced to writing only on further negotiations which is controlled by various factors. We cannot agree with the contention of the petitioner that the draft agreement itself ought to have been executed by the CPT and the awardee and that no modification could be made. As we had noticed earlier, it is pertinent that it is the awarder who made a change with respect to the earlier migration necessitating further negotiations before the execution of the agreement. This change was also only to ensure the successful implementation of the terminal and avoid unnecessary loss.
14. With reference to the specific amendments pointed out, we have to first notice that an independent financial consultancy firm, viz., M/s.SBI Capital Markets Ltd., Mumbai was appointed to WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 14 - carry out the financial evaluation and analysis of the changes proposed by the DPI. It was on their report that, the same would not have any significant adverse effect on the financial returns to the CPT, that the modifications were entered into after negotiations and after the Board scrutinizing each of the modifications and considering all the pros and cons of the conditions put forward by M/s.DPI. The Board has also taken into account, while according approval to the bid of DPI, the fact that the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs has desired that the project should be expedited. The instant tender was the attempt by the Board towards the implementation of the project, which, as we noticed, was the third attempt.
15. Looking at the specific references made with respect to the amendments, we notice the following aspects:
(i) The Gross Revenue was indicated to be not including income from interest and and other heads, which were mentioned earlier. We notice that what has been excluded are the interest, sales of assets, penalties and charges which accrued to the licensee on delayed payments by the persons who avail of the services. The injury caused on such delayed payments is on the licensee, who provides the services and the interest, charges and penalty are to recompense WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 15 - such injury caused to the licensee which have been regarded as not forming part of the income for the purposes of calculating the royalty on the basis of the gross revenue. We also notice that by Sl.No.19, interest is levied on the delayed payment of royalty by the licensee, which amply covers the injury of the licensor; i.e., CPT. The sale of the assets of the assess also cannot form the income of the assessee liable to royalty.
(ii) The exclusion of the licensee from payment of royalty on the levy of ground rent charges, within the RGCT project, was a condition stipulated by reason of the early migration and immediate implementation of the project at Vallarpadam.
(iii) The reduction of interest rate is only on the delayed payment of royalty amounts, which necessarily would have been agreed upon in the negotiations. We cannot find any loss caused to the public exchequer, since then necessarily we should anticipate the delay being caused in every circumstance.
(iv) The amendments to the upfront payment has been approved only after the financial implications as worked out by M/s.SBI CAP was scrutinized.
WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 16 -
16. Looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances, it cannot be gainsaid that when a tender notification is made, at all times the draft agreement itself should be executed and otherwise the same would fall foul of public policy. It is for the tenderer and the awardee to workout the final aspects of execution of a contract after due negotiations and after evaluation of the financial and other factors governing the issue. It has been often reiterated that the jurisdiction of the Courts exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially public interest litigations, cannot overreach into contractual matters. In any contract entered into for implementation of a project, the parties should have some elbow room, which is also applicable to public enterprises and especially so when public exchequer is involved. In the instant case, we have already noticed that the change in the tender conditions were necessitated only because of a major change, in so far as an early migration was stipulated in the Letter of Intent; which was not available in the tender conditions and which was incorporated with the purpose of avoiding loss to the public exchequer and visualising a situation leading to the entire project being stalled, as has been noticed. We are of the definite opinion that the modifications proposed do not in any manner indicate a benefit WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 17 - conferred on the licensee at the expense of the public exchequer.
17. We hold that the public interest projected by the petitioner, especially in the context of the petitioner refusing to put forward the material upon which he alleges loss to the public exchequer, cannot be countenanced on the material placed before us. In the teeth of the specific assertion that the petitioner is not prepared to place the materials on which he has raised allegations before this Court, we are of the opinion that such conduct requires to be deprecated in the strongest of terms. We do so. We again notice that though a number of averments with respect to the labour disputes pending between the workers and the management of the CPT have been made in the writ petition, it indicates the writ petition having been filed with covert intentions, especially in the context of the delay which we noticed in the earlier part of this judgment. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner though advanced arguments on the basis of the terms of settlement at the first instance, later withdrew from the same confining the arguments to the pleadings on the loss of exchequer. We restrain ourselves from imposing costs only on account of the fact that a trade union activist has approached the Court, purportedly in public interest. WP(C).No.15237 of 2013-S - 18 -
18. The petitioner has placed decisions before us to establish his locus standi to file a PIL and maintain the challenge against a contract by nature of a PIL. The learned Senior Counsel for CPT also has placed reliance on decisions which define the contours of the jurisdiction of the Courts when public interest and loss caused to public exchequer is canvassed in contractual matters. We do not think the same is relevant, since we have looked at the allegations placed on record by the petitioner and has held the action of the CPT to be above board. We dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merit, placing on record our strongest displeasure at the above referred conduct of the petitioner.
Sd/-
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.
vku/-
( true copy )