JANAKEEYA SAMITHI KOTHADU v. State of Kerala

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 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1942 ## WP(C).No.11822 OF 2020(S) ## PETITIONERS: 1 JANAKEEYA SAMITHI KOTHADU REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR MR.K.P.PAUL, S/O.K.C.PETER, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUTTIKAL HOUSE, KORAMPADAM, KOTHADU P.O., KOCHI-682 027. 2 A.R.SUNIL, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.A.P.RAPHAEL, TREASURER, JANAKEEYA SAMITHI, ADICHILIYIL HOUSE, KOTHADU P.O., KOCHI-682 027. BY ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU ## RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 3 KADAMAKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY THE SECRETARY KADAMAKUDY, PIZHALA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 027. ## SR.GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN FOR R1 AND R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 11822/2020 : 2 : ## **Dated this the 17[th] day of June, 2020.** ## **S. Manikumar, CJ** **P** etitioners, residents of the kadamakkudy Grama Panchayat, allegedly aggrieved by the arbitrary disbursal of flood related compensation, this public interest writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the first respondent to initiate a vigilance enquiry into the misappropriation of public funds in the disbursal of compensation relief in the Kadamakkudy village. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing respondent No.1 to streamline the process of fixing compensation as per the Disaster management Act. 3. To direct respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeals for compensation in the Lok Adalat be completed within a period of three months. 2. According to the petitioners, the area was one of the gravely affected areas by the floods in 2018. Most of the W.P.(C) No. 11822/2020 : 3 : residents had to take refuge in the relief camps and many of them belong to lower economic backgrounds. It is submitted that there are 13 wards in the Kadamakudy Panchayat having approximately 15000/- voters and while the funds were being disbursed, 7[th] ward got almost 60-74% of the disbursed funds. 110 families in the 7[th] ward got the highest compensation of 2 ½ lakhs. It is further submitted that the amounts were disbursed to persons residing on the northern part of the 7[th] ward and most of those houses situated therein did not have much damage on account of floods. It is contented that the worst affected in the area were hardly given compensation. 3. The 2[nd] petitioner, a resident of Ward No.7, was denied compensation on account of the refusal of the survey officials to properly do a survey. According to him, the houses surrounding his house got compensation; but his house was excluded. 4. It is further contended that some of the ineligible houses, which did not suffer flood damages, have started construction of the second floor, and permission has been W.P.(C) No. 11822/2020 : 4 : given by the Panchayat certifying that the houses were damaged severely, with more than 74% damage. **5.** Exhibit P2 is the representation submitted before the Kadamakkudy Tahsildar, and Ext.P3 is the representation submitted by the residents of the Kadamakkudy Panchayat before the Panchayat Secretary, Kadamakkudy. Petitioners have also approached the office of the Kadamakkudy Grama Panchayat regarding the same issue. On 29.08.2019, in Ext.P4 minutes of the meeting of Panchayat, the discrepancies in the disbursal of compensation were recorded. The Secretary of the Kadamakkudy Grama Panchayat has also addressed the District Collector, Ernakulam through Ext.P5, however, no fruitful results were achieved, which necessitated filing of this writ petition. 6. We have heard Smt. Sandhya Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. P. Narayanan, Sr. Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, apart from perusing the records. W.P.(C) No. 11822/2020 : 5 : 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments in terms of the pleadings discussed above. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners have not established any case in the writ petition so as to secure the relief of vigilance enquiry. Even though certain averments have been made with respect to the granting of more damages to the people residing in a different locality of the Panchayat, and to other persons, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that, that by itself is not a ground to seek vigilance enquiry, since such a contention and other pleadings put forth in the writ petition is not making out any case of corruption, malpractice by any particular official, or authority involved in the distribution of the flood relief funds. 8. Having assimilated the situation, the primary question which require consideration is, in a public interest litigation, what are the requirements that are to be put forth by the petitioners to secure the reliefs. As pointed out earlier, the petitioners have not produced any evidence so as to repose W.P.(C) No. 11822/2020 : 6 : confidence on this Court to act upon the same and grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioners, which thus means the information furnished by the petitioners is inadequate in order to consider the issues raised and then to grant the reliefs as sought for in the writ petition. 9. It is well settled that the writ court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry, dig up materials and then grant the relief to the writ petitioners. In that regard, we are of the view that the judgment of the Apex Court in **Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal** [(2004) 3 SCC 349] is relevant to the context. Paragraph 12 of the said decision reads thus: “12. 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 armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or W.P.(C) No. 11822/2020 : 7 : founded on personal vendetta. As Indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of the 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. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.” 10. A similar question was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Rohit Pandey v. Union of India and others** [(2005) 13 SCC 702] in respect of handing over of the investigation conducted with regard to the missing of a machine gun, to CBI and at paragraph 2 it was held as follows: “2. We expect that when such a petition is filed in public interest and particularly by a member of legal profession, it would be filed with all seriousness and after doing 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 W.P.(C) No. 11822/2020 : 8 : be made from the concerned authorities 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 12th February, 2004, in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala'. Further, the State of Uttar Pradesh had filed its affidavit an year earlier, i.e., on 7th October, 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 been 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 if a token cost of Rupees one thousand is imposed on the Petitioner.” 11. That apart, the issue is set at knot by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a plethora of decisions basically holding that a person approaching a constitutional court by filing a Public W.P.(C) No. 11822/2020 : 9 : Interest Litigation should provide sufficient materials before court, with clean hands and a clean soul, mind and heart. Now coming to the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that none of the parameters and requirements, set forth by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to entertaining a Public Interest Litigation emerge from out of the pleadings put forth by the petitioners, thus enabling this Court to consider the issues adjudge and then to grant reliefs to the petitioners. Moreover, Government have issued notifications as to the manner in which an application filed by a flood victim has to be considered, and appellate remedy is also provided. It only states that some persons have been given inadequate compensation and some not. Representations said to have been made seeking for an enquiry does not disclose any act of misappropriation. There is no basis for the writ petition and the prayers sought for. 12. That apart, in respect of the damages caused to the citizens due to the flood of 2018 i.e., in W.P.(C) No. 28093 of 2018, taking note of the Government notification, this Court W.P.(C) No. 11822/2020 : 10 : has issued directions enabling the affected persons to approach the District Legal Services Authority. Judicial notice can be taken that pursuant to the directions issued in the writ petition, a learned District Judge has been appointed to decide the appeals filed by the alleged victims of flood. That being the position, we do not think, the petitioners have made out any case for interference in this Court. The other reliefs sought are all individual in nature which could be alleviated resorting to redressal mechanism provided for the purpose. Needless to say, the writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. sd/- **S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.** sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.** Rv W.P.(C) No. 11822/2020 : 11 : ## **APPENDIX** ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE KERALA GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR BEARING NUMBER COK NO.25/2019/DMD DATED 23TH AUGUST 2019. EXHIBIT P1(a) TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1. EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR. EXHIBIT P2(a) TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2. EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BEFORE THE KADAMAKUDI TAHSILDAR OFFICE DATED 16TH OCTOBER 2019. EXHIBIT P3(a) TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3. EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 29TH AUGUST 2019. EXHIBIT P4(a) TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4. EXHIBIT P5 A COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE SECRETARY PANCYAHT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 06TH SEPTEMBER 2019. EXHIBIT P5(a) TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5. ## RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /True Copy/ rv PS to Judge.