Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Adv.Sri.Sreekanth S.Nair on 27 September, 2017
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1939
WP(C).No. 6695 of 2018
PETITIONER
LEGAL LITERACY COUNCIL,
ROOM NO.19, 4TH FLOOR, EMPIRE BUILDING, NEAR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, MR.JATHIN DAS S.
BY ADV.SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1. KERALA UNION OF WORKING JOURNALIST,
NEW DELHI UNIT, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY,
P.K.MANIKANDAN, 1/6, INS BUILDING RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. THOMAS DOMINIC,PRESIDENT, KUWJ, NEW DELHI, MALAYALA MANORAMA, 2/11, INS
BUILDING, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.
3. P.K.MANIKANDAN, SECRETARY, KUWJ, NEW DELHI, MATHRUBHUMI, 1/16, INS
BUILDING, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.
4. PRASOON S.KANDATH,TREASURER, KUWJ, NEW DELHI, KERALA KAUMUDI, 2/14, INS
BUILDING, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.
5. STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, STATUE, TRIVANDRUM.
6. THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, STATUE,
TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
7. THE SECRETARY,INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, STATUE, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
8. DIRECTOR,INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, KERALA
HOUSE, NEW DELHI-110001.
9. THE BRANCH MANAGER,FEDERAL BANK, CONNAT PALACE, NEW DELHI-110 001.
10. HEAD OFFICE, FEDERAL BANK, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-682 011.
11. THE DIRECTOR,
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
R BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEK CHAND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 6695 of 2018 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE-73 OF THE KERALA BUDGET
2011.
EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 27/09/2017 ISSUED
BY THE UNDER SECRETARY & STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION-I.
EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 28/11/2017 ISSUED
BY DPTY DIRECTOR & STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 16/12/2017 ISSUED
BY STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 28/08/2017
SUBMITTED BY THE KUWJ MEMBERS OF THE UNION.
EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN
ONLINE NEWS PORTAL "MARUNADAN MALAYALI" ON
04/12/2017.
EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE
VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
TRIVANDRUM.
// TRUE COPY //
P.S. TO JUDGE
ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.6695 of 2018
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2018
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, C.J.
The writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation. Petitioner alleges that the State of Kerala in its budget for the year 2011 granted Rs.25 lakhs to the first respondent Union to form 'Kerala Press Club' in New Delhi with the object and motive of providing infrastructure for the promotion and augmentation of journalistic profession and to uphold the professional values, morals and ethics. Petitioner contends that though the money was thus given and was credited in the account of the first respondent in Federal Bank branch New Delhi and a part thereof has been withdrawn, the amount has not been used for the intended purpose. It is in this background, the writ petition is filed with the following reliefs:
(i) By an appropriate, writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court, the 5th respondent may be directed to take appropriate legal action against 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondent W.P.(C)No.6695 of 2018 : 2 :
who are the persons carried the post of President, Secretary and Treasurer of the first respondent for the last 5 years.
(ii) By an appropriate, writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court, the respondents may be directed to enact laws to the effect that it is the duty of the 5 th respondents to collect unutilized public money which has been not utilized for last six years for its apt purpose.
(iii) By an appropriate, writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble court that it is the duty of the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 11th respondents to collect the allotted public money with its interest from 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents and ensure the same.
(iv) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
2. We heard the counsel for the parties.
3. Considering the fact that the cause of action which led the petitioner to file this writ petition is the alleged misutilisation or non utilisation of the funds, we asked the counsel to explain as to whether the writ petition could be maintained before this court having regard to the provisions contained in Article 226(2) of the W.P.(C)No.6695 of 2018 : 3 :
Constitution of India. This was answered by the learned counsel by contending that the money was granted by the State of Kerala and that, therefore, part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of this court. According to us, the said answer is quite unsatisfactory. As we have already stated, the cause of action, which lead the petitioner to file the writ petition, is the non utilisation of the funds for the intended purpose or its misutilisation. In either case, cause of action is entirely at Delhi which is beyond the territorial limits of this court and the fact that the amount has been granted by the State of Kerala, which grant is not challenged by the petitioner, is not a part of the cause of action either. Even if it is assumed that the beneficiary Union is registered in the State of Kerala, that also would not make any part of the cause of action within the State of Kerala.
4. In such circumstances, having regard to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this court in Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy W.P.(C)No.6695 of 2018 : 4 :
Commandant [1999 (3) KLT 629 (F.B.)] and in W.A.2306/15 [Dental Council of India (DCI) v. Dr.V.Viswanath], we decline to entertain the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the competent court, if he is so advised.
SD/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE SD/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE jes