Dr. Akshay Vedanga Prabhu v. Ochira Temple Administration Board and The President, Ochira Temple Administration Board, Ochira Parabrahma Temple

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 12519 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER:** DR.AKSHAY VEDANGA PRABHU, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. VEDANGA RANGANATHA PRABHU, VOLUNTEER OF GAU GYAN FOUNDATION, RESIDING AT 54/1089(1), JYOTHIRGAMAYA, 3RD CROSS ROAD, NETAJI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM , KOCHI 682 020. BY ADVS.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 THE OCHIRA TEMPLE ADMINISTRATION BOARD OCHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE, OCHIRA, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 526, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. - 2 THE PRESIDENT, THE OCHIRA TEMPLE ADMINISTRATION BOARD, OCHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE, OCHIRA, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 526, BY ADVS.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN T.S.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12519 OF 2020 :: 2 :: ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 22[nd] day of June 2022 ## **S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.** Petitioner in this writ petition is a doctor by profession and stated to be a volunteer of the Kerala unit of the Gau Gyan Foundation, which is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. This writ petition, which is styled as a public interest litigation, is filed with an intention to prevent cruelty with regard to the animals; “bulls” which are offered as offerings to the temple administered and managed by the respondents namely, Ochira Parabrahma Temple. 2. Relief sought for in this writ petition is as follows: (i) issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to safeguard and protect the sanctity of bulls and its life offered to the Ochira Parabrahma Temple by the devotees as offering. 3. The main grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that believers/devotees of Ochira Parabrahma Temple, in consonance with custom, belief and devotion, offer gifts or dedicate bulls, cows, etc. to Ochira Temple. These offerings of the devotees are received by the respondents and taken care for some time. Later on, they are either sold or made over to abattoir/slaughter house. Mr.K.Shri Hari Rao, learned WP(C) NO. 12519 OF 2020 :: 3 :: counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that having accepted a gift from the believers of the place, particularly, in consonance with the traditions, customs, beliefs and devotion, the committee ought not to make over or sell the gift so received to abattoir. 4. Sri.T.S.Harikumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, submitted that the petitioner filed this writ petition without even enquiring about the factual situation about the offering of bulls to the temple by the devotees and the subsequent maintenance of those bulls by the temple. 5. A detailed counter affidavit in this regard has also been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 wherein, it is averred that the temple administration committee in 2017 decided not to accept any bull as offering from the devotees and it was made known to the devotees through publication in the newspaper. It is also stated therein that the devotees who wants to offer a bull to the temple has to pay the money as they wish and to accept the receipt from the temple administration board. 6. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the temple is no longer accepting any bull, as offering from the devotees and hence the question of selling those bulls or given for slaughtering do not arise. WP(C) NO. 12519 OF 2020 :: 4 :: 7. On a perusal of the entire materials available on record, we find that there is no supporting documents to substantiate the prayers sought for in the writ petition, which is styled as a public interest litigation. Every Public Interest Litigation must be filed in accordance with the following rules: By virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of India and of all other powers hereunto enabling, the High Court makes the following Rules to regulate Public Interest Litigations (PIL) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Every Public Interest Litigation must be filed in accordance with the following rules: 1. Every PIL must indicate that the petitioner has no personal interest in the case. If he has any personal interest, he must disclose the same. In the event of the High Court finding the claim as frivolous or vexatious, the PIL shall be dismissed with exemplary cost. 2. If the PIL is filed on behalf of a class of persons, the details of the persons for whose benefit the PIL is filed, must be indicated. If it is a society or association of persons, the writ petitioner must enclose a resolution from such society or association of persons, authorising the petitioner to file the writ petition and if the body is duly registered with competent authority, a copy of the bye-laws of the said body authorising the petitioner to file the writ petition, shall be enclosed. 3. If the petitioner has filed any PIL earlier, the details of the petition, and the final order, if any, passed in that petition, the relief granted and costs, if any, awarded, shall be indicated. No Public Interest Litigation Petition will be entertained in respect of civil disputes between individuals or in service matters. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will pay the costs, if any, if it is found to be intended for personal gain or oblique motive. 4. The petitioner must disclose whether he has filed the petition WP(C) NO. 12519 OF 2020 :: 5 :: out of his own funds or from other sources. If it is the latter, the particulars should be given. 5. The petitioner must state in the affidavit that to his knowledge, no PIL arising on the same issue, has been filed anywhere. 6. The affidavit filed by the petitioner must contain the averments that he has filed the writ petition based on his information and his personal knowledge. If he has filed the writ petition based on an information received from any other source, he must clearly indicate the source. If it is a newspaper report, the affidavit shall clearly state as to whether the deponent has verified the facts by personally visiting the place or talking to any responsible person or Reporter or Editor of the newspaper concerned. 7. If the petitioner has given any representation to any authority, a copy of the same shall be filed in the typed set of papers along with reply, if any, received from the authority. He shall file the proof of service of representation before the Court. 8. On the aspect of public interest litigations and the principles governing the same, we deem it fit to extract a few decisions:- In **Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v. C.K. Rajan & Others** [(2003) 7 SCC 546], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional promises. [See **S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India** (1982) 2 SCC 494 **,** WP(C) NO. 12519 OF 2020 :: 6 :: **Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Others** (1984) 3 SCC 161 and **Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary** (1992) 4 SCC 305)] (ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of the public vis-a-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. [See **Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978) 4 SCC 104 and Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar** (1980) 1 SCC 81). (iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. In **Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani** (AIR 1979 SCC 468), it was held: "2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.” (See also _Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. and Anr. v. B.D._ WP(C) NO. 12519 OF 2020 :: 7 :: ## _Agarwal and Ors._ (2003) 5 SCALE 138). (iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. [See _Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344, S.P. Gupta (supra), People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra), Dr. D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 378 and BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others [(2002) 2 SCC 333_ ]. (v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (vi) Although procedural laws apply to PIL cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depends on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. [See **Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.** , 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 and **Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri and others** (1986) 1 SCC 100]. (vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. (See **Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India and Others** 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251). (viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (See **Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v.** WP(C) NO. 12519 OF 2020 :: 8 :: ## **Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and Others** (1987) 1 SCC 227). (ix) The Court in special situations may appoint a Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such Committee. (See **Bandhua Mukti Morchai, Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar** (1989) Suppl 1 SCC 644 and **A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu** (1999) 2 SCC 718). In **Sachidanand Panday and Another v. State of West Bengal and others** [(1987) 2 SCC 295], this Court held,- “61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action on when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extent its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the need, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such is required. But this does mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants." This Court, in an unreported judgment dated 30.06.2020 in **B. Radhakrishna Menon v. State of Kerala and Ors.** [W.P.(C) No.12109 of 2020], at paragraph 45, held thus: “45. Placing reliance on the above decisions, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a public interest writ petition which lacks bona fides, lack of particulars satisfying the requirements of a PIL, deserves to be dismissed with costs. Having regard to decisions considered in _**Mythri Residents Association v. Secretary, Tripunithura Municipality and Others,** [2019 KHC 832]_ , it has been summarised by the journal thus: WP(C) NO. 12519 OF 2020 :: 9 :: “(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. WP(C) NO. 12519 OF 2020 :: 10 :: (9) The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. (10) Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened by arrears. (11) Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. (12) This Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. (13) Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. (14) It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. (15) This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. (16) There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. (17) Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. (18) This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. (19) This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised WP(C) NO. 12519 OF 2020 :: 11 :: to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. (20) Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. (21) Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. (22) Courts protect the rule of law. (23) There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space.” 9. Instant writ petition, filed as a public interest writ petition, does not satisfy the requirement. Averments in the counter affidavit are accepted. 10. In view of the abovesaid decisions and the circumstances stated supra, we are of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable for issuance of mandamus. Writ petition is dismissed. **SD/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** **SD/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** jes