Kerala High Court
Thankachan vs The Government Of Kerala on 27 January, 2023
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Friday, the 27th day of January 2023 / 7th Magha, 1944
WP(C) NO. 2097 OF 2023(S)
PETITIONER (PARTY IN-PERSON)
THANKACHAN, AGED 52, S/O. LATE SEBASTIAN, MUNHANATTU (H),
NOOLPUZHA P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY- 673 592, WAYANAD DISTRICT,
KERALA.
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110 001.
4. THE STATE FOREST CHIEF, FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.
5. THE NATIONAL TIGER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER
SECRETARY TO THE AUTHORITY, B-1 WING, 7TH FLOOR, PT. DEEN DAYAL
ANTYODAYA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 003.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to stay all the process and further proceedings in relation to the
ESZ till the disposal of this writ petition,
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
SRI.THANKACHAN (Party-In-Person) for the petitioner, the court passed the
following:
P.T.O.
S.Manikumar, C.J.
&
Murali Purushothaman, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P.(C)No.2097 of 2023-S
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2023
ORDER
S.Manikumar, C.J.
Instant public interest litigation is filed by Mr. Thankachan, party-in-person, seeking the following reliefs:
"1. So, it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to consider this Writ Petition (C)as a Public Interested Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2) It is also most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to examin Constitutional, Environmental, social,developmental and economical aspects in relation to the ESZ (Eco-sensitive zone)
3) It is further prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to stop all the activities in relation to ESZ in the state of Kerala, by convincing the fact that the same is unconstitutional under Article 14, 19(1)e, 19(1)g, 21 and also violates Natural Justice.
W.P.(C)No.2097 of 2023-S -:2:-
4) It is also humbly prayed that Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to evaluate the fact that the ESZ will cause to bring great environmental problem in the State.
5) it is further humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents (a) to increase the quality of the forests (b) to stop man-wild encounter (c) to introduce programmes to protect farmers, as it being the first environmental protection activity which is needed in Kerala (d) to control the killer- plants and trees in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (e) to introduce and start environmental protection programme for the cities, ie, the most affected areas where the environmental ruin can be seen in its apex level in the world and (f) to separate the forest from human occupied areas permanently."
2. Most of the documents filed along with the writ petition in support of the contentions are just newspaper reports. Needless to say, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law, not to entertain writ petitions filed only based on newspaper reports. Reference can be made to few decisions:
W.P.(C)No.2097 of 2023-S -:3:-
(i) On the aspect of a Public Interest Litigation purely based on newspaper report, In Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court reported in (2004) 13 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"At the very outset, we put it to the petitioner that a bare perusal of the petition shows that it is based entirely on newspaper reports and asked him whether before filing the petition he has taken care to verify the facts personally. His answer is in the negative. In the writ petition all the 21 High Courts have been included as respondents and Union of India has also been impleaded as the 22nd respondent. We asked the petitioner what has provoked him to implead all the High Courts as respondents and he states that it is his apprehension that similar incidents may occur in other High Courts though there is no factual foundation for such appreciation.
5. After affording the full opportunity of hearing, we are satisfied that what purports to have been filed as a public interest litigation is nothing more than a "publicity interest litigation". It is writ large that it has been filed without any effort at verifying the facts by the petitioner personally."
(ii) In Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of a petition styled as a public interest litigation, held as follows:
"5. The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this court in various cases. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the W.P.(C)No.2097 of 2023-S -:4:- 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. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. 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. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
6. .....
7. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, High Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra W.P.(C)No.2097 of 2023-S -:5:- and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so- called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore- stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.
8. ......
9. 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 W.P.(C)No.2097 of 2023-S -:6:- substantial rights 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 tax 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 real public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous 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 of luxury litigants who have nothing to loose but trying to gain for nothing 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.
10. 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 allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or W.P.(C)No.2097 of 2023-S -:7:- 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 by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. 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."
(iii) In Rohit Pandey v. Union of India reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702, Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"1. This petition purporting to be in public interest has been filed by a member of the legal fraternity seeking directions against the respondents to hand over the investigation of the case pertaining to recovery of light machine gun, which is said to have been stolen from the army according to reports published in two newspapers, to the Central Bureau of Investigation for fair investigation to ensure that the real culprits who are behind such theft of army arms and ammunition endangering the integrity and sovereignty of the country may be brought to book and action may be taken against them in accordance with law. The only basis for the petitioner coming to this Court are two newspaper reports dated 25-1-2004, and the other dated 12-2-2004. This petition was immediately filed on 16-2-2004 after the aforesaid second newspaper report W.P.(C)No.2097 of 2023-S -:8:- appeared. On enquiry from the learned counsel, we have learnt that the petitioner is a young advocate having been in practice for a year or two. The Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh, have been arrayed as party respondents. In the newspaper reports, there is no allegation either against the Union of India or against the Chief Minister.
2. We expect that when such a petition is filed in public interest and particularly by a member of the legal profession, it would be filed with all seriousness and after doing the necessary homework and enquiry. If the petitioner is so public-spirited at such a young age as is so professed, the least one would expect is that an enquiry would be made from the authorities concerned as to the nature of investigation which may be going on before filing a petition that the investigation be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Admittedly, no such measures were taken by the petitioner. There is nothing in the petition as to what, in fact, prompted the petitioner to approach this Court within two-three days of the second publication dated 12-2- 2004, in the newspaper Amar Ujala. Further, the State of Uttar Pradesh had filed its affidavit a year earlier i.e. on 7-10-2004, placing on record the steps taken against the accused persons, including the submission of the charge-sheet before the appropriate court. Despite one year having elapsed after the filing of the affidavit by the Special Secretary to the Home Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, nothing seems to have been done by the petitioner. The petitioner has not even controverted what is stated in the affidavit. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed such a misconceived petition with exemplary costs but considering that the petitioner is a young advocate, we feel that the ends of justice would be met and the necessary message conveyed W.P.(C)No.2097 of 2023-S -:9:- if a token cost of rupees one thousand is imposed on the petitioner."(vii) On the aspect of a Public Interest Litigation purely based on newspaper report, In Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court reported in (2004) 13 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"At the very outset, we put it to the petitioner that a bare perusal of the petition shows that it is based entirely on newspaper reports and asked him whether before filing the petition he has taken care to verify the facts personally. His answer is in the negative. In the writ petition all the 21 High Courts have been included as respondents and Union of India has also been impleaded as the 22nd respondent. We asked the petitioner what has provoked him to implead all the High Courts as respondents and he states that it is his apprehension that similar incidents may occur in other High Courts though there is no factual foundation for such appreciation.
5. After affording the full opportunity of hearing, we are satisfied that what purports to have been filed as a public interest litigation is nothing more than a "publicity interest litigation". It is writ large that it has been filed without any effort at verifying the facts by the petitioner personally."
3. That apart, declaration of buffer zones, eco-sensitive zones, etc are done by the concerned authorities and there are judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that context.
However, we grant 10 days' time to Mr. Thankachan, party-
in-person, to go through the judgments of the Hon'ble W.P.(C)No.2097 of 2023-S -:10:- Supreme Court and place his submissions thereafter, with supporting documents.
Sd/-
S.Manikumar Chief Justice Sd/-
Murali Purushothaman Judge vpv 27-01-2023 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar