Pudussery Karuvanpady Koottukrishi Sangham v. State of Kerala and Others

W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -1- # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA,** **1943** **WP(C) NO. 11046 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **PUDUSSERY KARUVANPADY KOOTUKRISHI SANGHAM REG. NO.TSR/TC/471/2012, KIZHAKKEKUTTATH HOUSE, PUDUSSERY, CHERUTHURUTHY P.O., THRISSUR 679 531 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. K.K. DEVADAS.** **BY ADVS. A.JAYASANKAR SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN AYESHA MARIA JOHN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE (L) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA 680 003.** - **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, KERALA 678 013.** - **4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA 676 505** - **5 THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.** - **6 THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -2- **7 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033** **ADDITIONAL R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 1.09.21 IN IA 1/21 IN WPC 11046/2021** **BY SRI. K. P. HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -3- ## **J U D G M E N T** ## S. Manikumar, C.J. Pudussery Karuvanpady Koottukrishi Sangham has filed the instant public interest writ petition for the following reliefs:- “i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing Exhibit P4 order and any such other similar orders passed by the Respondents permitting mining of sand from the Bharathapuzha River as illegal, null and void; ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to ascertain and furnish the details of total sand mined from the Bharathapuzha River under Exhibit P4 and any such other similar orders; iii. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to furnish the details of the revenue received by the sale of sand by the local authorities and the private parties who have carried out the sand mining as per Exhibit P4 and any such other similar orders.” ## 2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder:- According to the petitioner, the District Collector, Thrissur, the W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -4- 2[nd] respondent, has issued Ext. P4 order dated 04.03.2020, purportedly under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, for removal of debris and waste from Bharathapuzha River in Thrissur District. Petitioner submitted that under the guise of the said order, illegal sand mining is carried out by private parties, which is being left unmonitored or regulated. The respondents are aiding private parties to amass wealth illegally. It is further submitted that petitioner is a Society which carries out cultivation of paddy and other crops, and is aggrieved by the illegal action/inaction on the part of the authorities for protecting the Bharathapuzha river, along with its flora and fauna. 3. Being aggrieved, instant public interest writ petition is filed on the following grounds:- - A. The action/inaction of the respondents herein is violative of Article 21 of the citizen of the State. The Bharathapuzha river is a public resource and any damage caused to it would have a direct impact on the lives of thousands of people who directly or indirectly depend on the said river for a variety of needs. W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -5- - B. Ext. P4 appears to be one issued by the District Collector, the 2[nd] respondent, under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. It is pertinent to note that there existed no such threats, as envisaged in Ext. P4, in the year 2020 since the amount of rainfall was far below that in previous years. The issuance of Ext. P4 is nothing but an abuse of power and authority to aid private parties, may or may not with monetary intentions. - C. There are a plethora of judgments which lays down guidelines for sand mining from rivers. Under the guise of an action initiated under the Disaster Management Act, all such guidelines have been flouted, when it is evident that no such imminent threats are present currently. - D. The usage of excavators and diesel motors for sand mining is expressly prohibited by the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, and the rules thereunder. However, all such stipulations have been flouted and the same is being supported by the respondents herein. - E. The sand audit is to be conducted by agencies who have expertise in the field, since any outcome of the same will have irreversible W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -6- impact on the environment. However, as can be seen from Exhibit P1, the sand mining has been entrusted with agencies who have very less or zero experience and expertise in the field. The reports submitted by such agencies cannot be accepted as authentic. However, the same has been ignored. - F. The sand mined out of the river is being taken away by the private agencies which carry out the mining. No established procedure under the Minor Mineral Regulations are being followed in this regard. This inaction on the part of the respondents herein is nothing but evidence of aiding the private agencies to unlawfully enrich themselves. The involvement of the officials of the respondents herein in the said action/inaction is worthy of investigation. - G. The sand mined from the Bharathapuzha river appears to be taken to other States, rather than selling it off in the State of Kerala. The sand fetches a fortune, since the same is an essential ingredient for building construction. The respondents have not placed any machinery to ascertain the amount of sand removed from the river bed, as well as the usage of the said sand. W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -7- - H. The unscientific and indiscriminate mining of sand from the river bed of Bharathapuzha has in fact, turned some parts of the river saline. The sand is a natural filter which purifies the water from contaminants including salts. The removal of sand has rendered the water useless and in fact, destructive to the flora and fauna itself. - I. The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, and the rules thereunder, provides for the constitution of regulatory bodies, including but not limited to Kadavu Committees, for monitoring and regulating the sand mining from rivers. However, no positive action envisaged by the said Act has been adhered to by the respondents herein while granting permission for sand mining in the instant case. - J. The 2[nd] Respondent in Ext. P4 has invoked the powers conferred upon him under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, for something that was never envisaged by the said Act. This amounts to fraud on statute. - K. It is pertinent to note that unlike other rivers in the State, the chances of accumulation of debris/mud in Bharathapuzha river is scarce. The reason for the flooding that happened in the year 2018 W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -8- is the poor management of the check dams/regulator bridges constructed in the river. The inability to open the shutters of the said check dams/regulator bridges caused the flooding and not the accumulation of debris or mud. Under the guise of removing the debris/mud, the parties are in fact removing the valuable sand mineral and selling it off in black markets outside the State. - L. Even assuming, without admitting that the sand accumulation is the cause for the inability to open the shutters during the rainy season, the said sand can be collected and deposited in the river itself, so as to level up the uneven terrain, which would ensure smooth flow and purification of water. Instead, the respondents are aiding private parties to mint money, by excavating the valuable sand, probably for monetary benefits. - M. Section 12 (8) of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, clearly stipulates that mechanised methods shall not be engaged for carrying out sand removal operations. The respondents are aiding and abetting flagrant violation of the said provision. This would in fact defeat the purpose of the entire Act itself. W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -9- 4. Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Centre Circle, Ernakulam, has filed a statement on behalf of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Administration, Thiruvananthapuram, the 5[th] respondent, which reads thus:- “1. The above writ petition is filed alleging the illegal sand mining operations carried out in Bharathapuzha River pursuant to Exhibit P4 order No DCTSR/454/2020/H3 dtd 04/03/2020 of the District Collector, Thrissur. The prayers of the petitioner is to quash the Exhibit P4 order and to furnish details of sand mined from Bharathapuzha River under Exhibit P4 and to furnish details of revenue received by sale of sand carried out as per Exhibit P4. It may kindly note that all the exhibits produced are related to Revenue Department and Irrigation department is no way related to this orders and other proceedings. It is clearly seen in the affidavit and statement of facts filed by the petitioner himself that all his allegations were related to the Exhibit P4 order which is issued by the District Collector, Thrissur. It is most humbly submitted that the Irrigation Department is not at all aware of all these allegations in the writ petition. 2 However, as the petition is related to sand mining in Bharathapuzha River. It is significant to submit some facts related to the desiltation of Dams Reservoirs and Regulators in Kerala carried out by Irrigation Department to remove the excess sand and silt accumulated during the flood in 2018 and W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -10- 2019. These regulators are in Bharathapuzha River, Periyar river, Chaliyar river etc. and a brief description regarding the same is given below for kind consideration. 3. It is submitted that during the flood of August 2018 and August 2019, as a result of heavy flow of water a large quantity of sand got deposited over the apron of regulators and Checkdams in Bharathapuzha River and its upstream side. The so deposited sand decreased the storage capacity of the reservoirs and also hindered the shutter operations of the regulators. Thus if the sand from sufficient area is not removed it will get deposited over the regulator every year and will block the way for flood water during heavy rains thus cause overflow of river which may result in another flood. 4. By over viewing the decreasing capacity of reservoirs and check dams. vide G.O(Rt) No 425/2018/WRD dated 16/06/2018 the Govt of Kerala constituted an Empowered committee to prepare Standard Operating Procedures for Desiltation of the Reservoirs in Kerala comprising the officials of various departments viz, Water Resource Department, KSEB, Port Department, Forest Dept, Kerala Water Authority, Mining and Geology, National Centre for Earth Science Studies and Centre for Water Resource Development and Management. 5. It is submitted that the Honourable National Green Tribunal vide its order dated 13[th] January 2015 in the matter regarding sand mining has directed to make a policy on W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -11- Environment clearance. The Ministry of Environmental Forest and Climate Change, Govt of India has through Notification number S.O 141(E) dated 15[th] January 2016 appendix IX para 7(1) B Exemption of certain cases from requirement of environmental clearance specified that: Sl. 6. “Dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, river and canals for the purpose of their maintenance, upkeep and disaster management.” 6. Based on G.O(P) No 50/2019/WRD dated 08/11/2019 Government has accorded administrative sanction for desiltation for a total quantity of approximately 140000 m3 from reservoirs and checkdams in Bharathapuzha, Periyar and Chaliyar etc. (1. Pookootumanna RCB in chaliyar-55000cum. 2. Cheruthuruthy check dam in Bharathapuzha-10000cum. 3. Chenganamkunnu Regulator in Bharathapuzha -56000cum. 4. Velliangal RCB in Bharathapuzha -7500cum 5. Manjummal Regulator in Periyar -1000cum, 6. Purappillikavu Regulator in Periyar -8000cum). And based on G.O(Rt) No.919/2019/WRD Dated 07/12/2019 Government has further accorded administrative sanction to invite expression of interest to evaluate the competition for desiltation of various reservoirs in Kerala (Malampuzha, Meenkara, Karapuzha, Valayar. Pazhassi, Maniyar, Malankara, Kampalathara, Kunnampidari, Venkalakkayam e.t.c. 7. It is most respectfully submitted that the Kerala Engineering Research Institute (KERI) which is under W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -12- Irrigation Department was directed to conduct field study and investigation regarding the desiltation process. KERI which is a Government Institution provides useful services by fulfilling needs in the fields of Investigation, Testing, Hydraulic Model Studies, Quality control and Research and Development in the field of Civil Engineering and Water Resource Engineering in particular. Based on the study report submitted by KERI and also by examining the decisions of Empowered Committee, Govt has accorded, Administrative sanction to Irrigation Department to commence the desiltation process after the bid process. Tender was invited based on the Standard Operating Procedure as per G.O (MS) No.79/2017/WRD Dated 26/09/2017 and the desiltation work was awarded to the contractor. 8. As per the standard Operating Procedure all the desiltation works has been monitored by a Committee chaired by District Collector and the members from Revenue Department, Irrigation Department, Police Department, Geology and Mining, Forest Department, PWD Department etc. and RTO. All the activities at the site have been monitored by the monitoring committee and under the surveillance of camera. 9. As regard to the averments contained in the Writ petition, it is submits that no illegal sand mining is carried out by Irrigation Department in Bharathapuzha river and also this department has not entrusted any works to any private parties / W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -13- agencies as claimed by the petitioner. The above public interest writ petition is filed without any bonafides and not stating any specific source for allegation. It is pertinent to see that there is no public wrong or public injury is established by the petitioner and hence this Writ Petitione is not maintainable. This respondent relies the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kansing Kalusing Thakore and Others vs. Rabri Maganbhal Vashrambhal and Others reported in 2006(12)SCC 360. 10. Also the facts mentioned in Para 5 in the WP(C) is clearly denied by the 5[th] respondent as it is a false allegation. It is true that the 19 check dams / regulator bridges constructed across Bharathapuzha River is under the supervision of this department. All these constructions were carried out after proper field study, investigation and as per the direction of IDRB wing. All these check dams and regulators are well maintained by this department and it serve the actual purpose for which it was constructed. It may also note that due to the flood in 2018 excess sand deposited in all these places and that was the reason for hindrance in shutter operations. And desiltation is the only method to remove the excess sand accumulated in these places. 11. It is respectfully submit that Irrigation Department is not doing any illegal sand mining in any of the rivers in Kerala. The contentions raised in the writ petition are devoid of merits and none of the grievances raised in the WP(C) will not stand in the eye of law hence this Hon'ble Court may pleased W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -14- to dismiss the writ petition with cost and accordingly safe guard the best interest of the Government, so as to mitigate flood risk to the General public and also to augment of water storage capacity of the reservoirs.” 5. By inviting the attention of this Court to the Annexure in Ext. P4 codified list of information obtained from various Local Self Government Institutions, in connection with removal of silt and debris deposited in flood affected areas, Mr. K. P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that Bharathapuzha river in Thrissur District, is not at all included in the list of rivers / canals, in which directions have been issued to remove the debris / waste, that have been accumulated. 6. Inviting the attention of this Court to Annexure R5(C), learned Senior Government Pleader, further submitted that check dams / regulators are installed in Bharathapuzha river, at the following places / areas:- |Sl. No.|Regulator / Area|Approximate Quantity| |---|---|---| |1.|Pookottumanna RCB|55,000 cum| |2.|Cheruthuruthi Check Dam|10,000 cum| |3.|Changanamkadu Regulator|56,000 cum| |4.|Manjummal Regulator|1,000 cum| W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -15- |5.|Velliangal RCB|7,500 cum| |---|---|---| |6.|PurappallyKavu Regulator|8,000 cum| 7. Based on the statement filed on behalf of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Administration, Thiruvananthapuram, the 5[th] respondent, learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that no mining activity is carried on, except desilting and removal of the accumulated waste in rivers and canals. He further added that for the abovesaid purpose, work is not entrusted to any private party / agency. 8. Contenting on the basis of the averments in the statement filed on behalf of the 5[th] respondent and the supporting documents, Mr. K. P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader, also submitted that the averments in the writ petition are not substantiated, by any material, and thus, the prayers sought for are liable to be rejected. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. Ext. P1 G. O. (Rt) No. 730/2019/Rev. dated 01.03.2019, appointing agencies to conduct sand auditing in Bharathapuzha, reads thus:- W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -16- **==> picture [426 x 453] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -17- **==> picture [426 x 485] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [426 x 175] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -18- ## 11. Ext. P2 G. O. (Rt) No. 874/2020/RD dated 28.02.2020, approving sand auditing report of stretch III of the Bharathapuzha river, is reproduced:- **==> picture [426 x 516] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -19- **==> picture [401 x 599] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -20- **==> picture [426 x 392] intentionally omitted <==** 12. Ext. P3 G. O. (Rt) No. 1906/2020/RD dated 25.05.2020, approving sand auditing report of stretch I of Bharathapuzha river, reads thus:- W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -21- **==> picture [426 x 579] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -22- **==> picture [426 x 573] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -23- **==> picture [426 x 484] intentionally omitted <==** 13. Ext. P4 Order No. DCTSR/454/2020/H3 dated 04.03.2020 of the District Collector, Thrissur, dated 04.03.2020, has ordered formation of District / Municipality / Panchayat Committees for the removal of debris, accumulated in the rivers and canals during the floods, and the same is reproduced:- W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -24- **==> picture [399 x 595] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -25- **==> picture [426 x 591] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -26- **==> picture [426 x 411] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -27- **==> picture [425 x 597] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -28- **==> picture [426 x 582] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -29- **==> picture [417 x 599] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -30- **==> picture [423 x 595] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -31- **==> picture [426 x 598] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -32- **==> picture [426 x 222] intentionally omitted <==** 14. As rightly contended by Mr. K. P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader, Bharathapuzha river is not included in Ext. P4 order of the District Collector dated 04.03.2020. Sand mining activity as alleged by the writ petitioner is not supported by any material. 15. Material on record further discloses that what has been directed is only removal of debris / waste, accumulated in the rivers due to flood. Contention of the petitioner that private agency is engaged for sand mining is refuted and no contra material is provided to support the same. 16. Giving due consideration to the material on record, it could W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -33- be deduced that instant public interest writ petition has been filed without any supporting material. 17. 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 **, 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- W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -34- 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_ W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -35- _(D) By Lrs. and Anr. v. B.D. 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]. W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -36- (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. 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 W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -37- 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: “(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 W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -38- 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. W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -39- (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. (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 W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -40- 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 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 W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -41- parameters occupy the judicial space.” ## 18. Instant writ petition, filed as a public interest writ petition, does not satisfy the requirement. Reliefs sought for cannot be granted. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. **Sd/S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** Eb ///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE W.P.(C) No. 11046 of 2021 -42- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11046/2021** |PETITIONER|EXHIBITS| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1|A<br>TRUE<br>COPY<br>OF<br>G.O.(RT)| ||NO.730/2019/REV. DATED 1.3.2019 ISSUED| ||BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS| ||ENGLISH TRANSLATION.| |EXHIBIT P2|A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.874/2020/RD| ||DATED 28.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT| |EXHIBIT P3|A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.1906/2020/RD| ||DATED 25.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT| |EXHIBIT P4|A<br>TRUE<br>COPY<br>OF<br>ORDER| ||NO.DCTSR/454/2020/H3 DATED 4.3.2020| ||ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH| ||ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.| |EXHIBIT P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION| ||CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY| ||WITH NO.TSR/TC/471/2012 DATED 2012.|