Sabu P Joseph v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 14820 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **ADV. SABU P JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.P.A. JOSEPH,VICE-CHAIRMAN-LEGAL CELL, HUMAN RIGHTS FORUM, REG. NO.186/IV/19, REGISTERED OFFICE AT B. NO.XX-638, CLASSIC TOWER, A.M. ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683542, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. C.N.SREEKUMAR ANIL PRASAD MANJU PAUL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA , GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.** - **2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPRTMENT OF FISHERIES, NORTH BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001** - **3 DIRECTOR OF FISHERIIES, DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** - **4 COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014.** - **5 DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS, SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE(P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003** - **6 DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.** **SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SR GOVT.PLEADER FOR RESPONDENTS** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 2 ## J U D G M E N T Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2021 ## S. Manikumar, CJ Instant public interest writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: - (i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to implement strict measures, to control and cease sale of adulterated, chemical used and contaminated fish in the State; - (ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Director of Fisheries, Directorate of Fisheries, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.3, to conduct periodical inspection in the Harbours, Fish Landing Centres and such other places where fish is brought in ships, boats and other vessels to monitor and check the use of chemicals for preservation of fish; - (iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent Nos.3 to 6, viz., Director of Fisheries, Directorate of Fisheries, Thiruvananthapuram; Commissioner of Food Safety, Thiruvananthapuram; Director, Department of Urban Affairs, Thiruvananthapuram; and Director of Panchayat, Thiruvananthapuram, to conduct inspections and take prosecution against the sale of adulterated, chemical used and contaminated fish in the State; _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 3 - (iv) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to constitute Statewise, District-wise, Corporation/Municipality/Panchayatwise Committee, to inspect and monitor the quality of fish sold in the market through vendors; - (v) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to make it mandatory a quality certificate from authorised officer to sell fish brought to the State from other States; and - (vi) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.1, to continue operation “Sagar Rani Mission” or similar initiative around the year to ensure that no contaminated fish is sold in the State.” 2. Facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that petitioner, a Vice Chairman-Legal Cell of Human Rights Forum, a registered organisation, who stands for the public cause, is concerned about the adulterated and contaminated sale of fish in retail and local markets, in the State of Kerala. According to him, lethal chemicals like formalin, ammonia and sodium benzoate are added to the fish, to prevent normal decaying and to make them look fresh for more days, which causes serious health hazards to the consumers and immediately/gradually, they become affected. _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 4 3. Petitioner claims that though he had brought many public issues to the notice of the authorities concerned, including the Government, they did not evoke any response. He contended that due to the lack of consistent effort on the part of the Government and its agencies, contaminated fish were easily sold in the State. He also stated that a majority of fish brought from other States are contaminated and during the period of trolling ban in Kerala, it has reached its peak. Government have to implement a regular and consistent system, to control and restrict the sale of contaminated fish in the State. 4. Petitioner has further stated that he has filed the instant writ petition purely in the interest of the public. He has invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only for the purpose of espousing a public cause and not for enforcing the right of one individual against another, as happens in the case of ordinary litigations, but it is intended to promote and vindicate public interest, which demands that violations of legal rights of a large number of people should not go unnoticed and unaddressed. That would be destructive of the rule of law, which forms one of the essential elements of public interest in any democratic form of the Government. 5. Petitioner has pointed out that Kerala is considered as a fish consuming State and according to him, the average per capita fish _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 5 consumption is 27.30 kg. The hike in fish consumption is mainly associated with the upsurge in income, increasing health consciousness and changing lifestyle of the people. He further pointed out that fish has become an indispensable part in the food basket of Keralites as it is considered as a healthy food, which is rich in edible protein. During the early 70's, fish consumption patterns stood at 15 kgs. per annum were declined, but the reality is that at each household, there is at least one meal with fish every day. 6. Petitioner has further stated that the fish available in the State of Kerala is adulterated with deadly poisonous chemical substances. In earlier days, normal ice was being used for preserving fish from decaying. Since the small ships and boats engaged in fishing are taking months and weeks to return to mainland, after the fishing and normal freezing methods are not so effective, they are using chemicals, including formalin, ammonia and sodium benzoate which causes serious health hazards. He has also pointed out that consumption of fish treated with formalin will lead to nausea, vomiting blood and diarrhea with bloody stool, blood from urine, acidosis, vertigo and circulation failure, then death. Sodium benzoate is a chemical used as a preservative for several types of food in normal dosage. 7. Petitioner has further stated that in Kerala, news reports have _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 6 come stating that a large share of fish brought to the markets are found to be contaminated. He has also alleged that fish is brought to Kerala from the States of Tamil nadu, Karnataka, Goa, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh through the borders of Thiruvananthapuram, Poovar, Amaravila, Walayar and Kasaragod, and that, about 150 loads of fish are brought here per day. According to him, the majority of these are known to be adulterated. The health experts opine that the chemicals cause health hazards in the long run. 8. Petitioner has further contended that contaminated fish can be identified at the borders, if regulatory measures are implemented at the check posts. When an inspection was carried out in a check post, following a case of food poison, formalin and ammonia were detected in the fish. Fish will stay fresh for a maximum three days, if it is kept iced in a proper insulated system, but the chemicals can make the fish look fresh for more days. As per the new method followed, chemicals are added along with the ice. The paper kit test developed by the Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFT) in Kochi can be used widely to stop the contaminated fish from arriving to the market. 9. Petitioner has further stated that due to the increase in the flow of contaminated fish to Kerala from outside States and on the report of health issues, arising out of the same, State Government have started a _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 7 Mission called as “Operation Sagar Rani” in the year 2018, as there was suspicion that poisonous fish was being transported to Kerala. This Mission was led by the 4[th] respondent, Commissioner of Food Safety, Thiruvananthapuram, with the support of Food Safety Intelligence officials and the District Food Safety Squad. As a result of the action of 'Operation Sagar Rani” Mission, 6,000 kgs of fish were seized at the State border check post at Walayar, Palakkad; 9,500 kgs of prawn were seized from Thoothukudi, and 2,200 kgs of decayed fish from Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram, in Kerala. According to the petitioner, these were brought from Thengapattinam of Tamil Nadu, to be sold in Kerala. He further pointed out that a month-old shark and other fish infested with maggots were seized from trucks during a vehicle check and another 1,200 kgs of fish were seized from Alappuzha. 10. Petitioner has further stated that availability of fish in the State of Kerala has almost been negligible ever since COVID-19 lockdown. Due to the repeated cyclone in the sea and trolling ban during the month of June-July, in the State of Kerala, fishermen remained off sea and have neither been catching nor selling fish. Trucks carrying fish were also seen on the roads. The shortage of fish caught in the State, due to trolling ban, has resulted in vast quantities of it being brought from across the borders. _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 8 11. Petitioner has further stated that in recent times, fish markets are faced with a huge flow of fish from outside the State, due to the continuous restriction for fisherman from fishing in sea. Exploiting this situation, a huge racket is functioning to bring fish from outside the State, preserving the same using hazardous chemicals and substances for its weeks long travel to reach different parts of the State. 12. According to the petitioner, “Operation Sagar Rani” Mission and intensive checking of fish brought to the State were continued for a short span. The Government and authorities concerned are not consistent to ensure that neither rotten nor chemical-laden fish enters the State. His grievance is that the inability of the State to continue with the proper and permanent system, to confine flow of neither rotten nor chemical-laden fish to the State, its sale in the market and retail shops, enhance the sale of adulterated and contaminated fish during the period of trolling. 13. He has further stated that the adulterated and contaminated fish entered into the State and its sale in local market and retail shops, is a continuing process and has reached its peak during the trolling ban period. The Government mechanism is not functioning upto the mark, instead of constituting in paper. It is appreciable that the Government of Kerala have come with Ordinance No.28 of 2021, the Kerala Fish _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 9 Auctioning, marketing and Maintenance of Quality Ordinance, 2021, with the intention to provide for regulating of fish auctioning and marketing, to promote systematic, hygienic and efficient auctioning and marketing, to maintain quality and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 14. Petitioner has further stated that the abovesaid Ordinance, 2021 promulgated with State Level Fish Quality Maintenance Committee to maintain quality of fish to be sold in the market. That apart, the Committee to be formed for management of Harbour, Landing Market and Fish Market, including the members of Panchayat, Municipality and Corporation along with Food Safety and Matsyfed officials. The Ordinance also prescribes certification of fish sold in the market, permit and licence to the sellers and fishermen, and it also authorises the inspecting officers to inspect any vessel, fish landing centre, harbour, market, shop room, booth, chilled storage, ice plant, pre-processing centre, fish transportation facility and container and allied things to ensure that no fish handled are stale or containing germs or added chemicals/toxic substances or of sub-standard quality. 15. Petitioner has further stated that even after such a critical situation and a lot of adulterated and contaminated fish were seized from different parts of the State, Government is reluctant and _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 10 unenthusiastic to control such illegal entry of contaminated fish to the State and sale of chemical treated fish in the market. By espousing concern of a large number of people in the present COVID-19 pandemic situation, due to the ban of trolling and scarcity in the availability of fish, threat to increase the sale of contaminated and chemically treated fish in the State, petitioner has no other remedy other to approach this Court, Hence, this writ petition is filed for the reliefs stated supra. 16. Heard Mr. Anil Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the material on record. 17. Though Mr. Anil Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, made submissions on the prayers, with reference to the averments made in the supporting affidavit, and also invited the attention of this Court to the Kerala Fish Auctioning, Marketing and Maintenance of Quality Ordinance, 2021, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for the reason that the writ petition does not satisfy the requirements of a Public Interest Litigation. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court has summarised certain principles with respect to filing a Public Interest Litigation. In this context, let us consider a few decisions: (i) In **Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr.** **v. C.K.Rajan & Others** [(2003) 7 SCC 546], the Hon'ble Apex Court _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 11 ## has summarised the principles with respect to filing a Public Interest Litigation and they are reproduced: “(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 are 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-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 _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 12 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 minigrievances. 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. 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 _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 13 378] 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. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and Others** reported in (1987) 1 SCC 227). _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 14 (ix) The Court in special situations, may appoint a Commission or other bodies, for the purpose of investigating allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct the management of a public institution taken over by such a 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 as under:- “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." ## (ii) This Court in the 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 _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 15 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 as under: “(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. _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 16 (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 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 _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 17 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 parameters occupy the judicial space. 19. In the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, certain parameters have to be satisfied in a Public Interest Litigation. 20. On the aspect of 'Public Interest' and 'Public Interest Litigation', and the requirements, we deem it fit to consider the following: (i) In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public Interest' is defined thus: "Public Interest a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." (ii) In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows : "Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 18 are affected. It does not mean anything about the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by the national government...." ## (iii) In **Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.)** , [(1986) 1 SCC 100], it has been held as follows:- “2. Public interest litigation is a comparatively recent concept of litigation but it occupies an important status in the new regime of public law in different legal systems By its very nature the concept of public interest litigation is radically different from that of traditional private litigation. Ordinary tradition litigation is essentially of an adversary character where there is a dispute between the two litigating parties, one making the claim or seeking relief against the other and the other opposing such claim or resisting such relief. While public interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another, as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, it is intended to prosecute and vindicate public interest which demands that violation of constitutional or legal rights of a large number of people, who are poor, ignorant or socially and economically in disadvantaged position, should not go unnoticed, unredressed for that would be destructive of the rule of law. Rule of law does not mean protection to a fortunate few or that it should be allowed to be prosecuted by vested interests for protecting and upholding the status quo. The poor too have a civil and political right. Rule of standing evolved by Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that only a person wronged can sue for judicial redress may not hold good in the present setting. Therefore, new strategy has to be evolved so that justice becomes easily available to the lowly and the lost. Law is not a closed shop. Even under the old system it was permissible for the next friend to move the court on behalf of a minor or a person under disability or a person under detention or in restraint. Public interest litigation seeks to further relax the rule of locus standi.” _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 19 (iv) In **Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary** [(1992) 4 SCC 305], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of Public Interest Litigation, and, in paragraph 52, after considering what is public interest, held as under: "The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL" means the legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows: "Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold." In para 96 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as follows: "While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that Courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration." In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows: _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 20 “It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have as locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold". 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, unrepresented 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 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 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 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 _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 21 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 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 and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system. 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 used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or 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 members 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 busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.” (v) While observing that Public Interest Litigation is a weapon to be used with great care and circumspection, in **Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors.** [(2007) 14 SCC 281], the _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 22 Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "20. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the 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. .... 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. ....." ## (vi) In **P. Seshadri v. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy and others** , [(2011) 5 SCC 484], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “Public interest litigation can only be entertained at the instance of bona fide litigants. It cannot be permitted to be used by unscrupulous litigants to disguise personal or individual grievances as public interest litigations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court does not approve an approach that would encourage petitions filed for achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and reckless allegations made by individuals i.e. busybodies, having little or no interest in the proceedings. The credentials, the motive and the objective of the petitioner have to be apparently and patently above board. Otherwise the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.'' ## (vii) In **Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State Of** **Maharashtra & Ors** [(2013) 4 SCC 465], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of the court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 23 and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, “ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a Visa”. Many societal pollutants create new problems of nonredressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. [Vide: **P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr.,** (AIR 1980 SC 856) **; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.,** (2010) 2 SCC 114 **; State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.,** (2010) 3 SCC 402 **;** and **Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,** (2011) 7 SCC 69)].” 21. Though Mr. Anil Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on the Kerala Fish Auctioning, Marketing and Maintenance of Quality Ordinance, 2021, (Ordinance 28 of 2021), made to provide for regulating fish auctioning and marketing, to promote systematic, hygienic and efficient auctioning and marketing to maintain quality, and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, reading of the Ordinance shows that the Ordinance has ceased to operate, on 11.02.2021. There is no material to indicate as to whether, the said Ordinance has been subsequently made as a statute or the period of the said ordinance has been extended further. 22. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 24 the averments in paragraph (8) of the Statements of Facts, that “Operation Sagar Rani” Mission and intensive checking of fish brought to the State, were continued for a short span and that the Government, as well as the authorities concerned, are not consistent to ensure that neither rotten nor chemical-laden fish enters the State, the said contentions are not substantiated by any material. 23. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to support his contentions on newspaper reports, we are not inclined to entertain the same, for the reason that mere newspaper reports also would not constitute sufficient material. In this context, reference can be made to the following decisions: ## (i) In **Laxmi Raj Shetty and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu** [(1988) 3 SCC 319], at paragraphs 25 and 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "25. ............ We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspapers report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. 26. It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 25 the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The accused should have therefore produced the persons in whose presence the seizure of the stolen money from Appellant 2's house at Mangalore was effected or examined the press correspondents in proof of the truth of the contents of the news item. The question as to the admissibility of newspaper reports has been dealt with by this Court in **Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Femandez and Ors.** [(1969) 3 SCR 603]. There the question arose whether Shri George Femandez, the successful candidate returned to Parliament from the Bombay South Parliamentary Constituency had delivered a speech at Shivaji Park attributed to him as reported in the Maratha, a widely circulated Marathi newspaper in Bombay, and it was stated thus: "A newspaper report without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second-hand secondary evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible." We need not burden the judgment with many citations. There is nothing on record to substantiate the facts as reported in the newspapers showing recovery of the stolen amount from the residence of Appellant 2 at Mangalore. We have therefore no reason to discard the testimony of PW 50 and the seizure witnesses which go to establish that the amount in question was actually recovered at Madras on the 29[th] and the 30[th] as alleged." (ii) In **S.A. Khan v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another** reported in (1993) 3 SCC 151: AIR 1993 SC 1348, at paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 26 "22. In the present case, no evidence has been let in proof of the statement of facts contained in the newspaper report. The absence of any denial by Ch. Bhajan Lal will not absolve the applicant from discharging his obligation of proving the statement of facts as appeared in the Press report. In fact, Ch. Bhajan Lal in his counter affidavit has taken a stand that the statements attributed to him based on the newspaper report are mere hearsay and cannot in law be relied upon for the purpose of initiating such proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of required legal proof, the Court will not be justified in issuing a suo motu notice for contempt of court." ## (iii) In **Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. The State of Assam and** **Ors** ., reported in AIR 1999 SC 3571, at paragraph 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "25. Newspaper reports regarding the Central Government decision could not be any basis for the respondents to stop action under the Assam Control Order of 1961. The paper reports do not specifically refer to the Assam Control Order, 1961. In fact, Government of Assam itself was not prepared to act on the newspaper reports, as stated in its wireless message. Section 81 of the Evidence Act was relied upon for the appellant, in this behalf, to say that the newspaper reports were evidence and conveyed the necessary information to one and all including the respondents 2 and 3. But the presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 to newspaper reports cannot be treated as proof of the facts stated therein. The statements of fact in newspapers are merely hearsay Laxmi Raj Setty v. State of Tamil Nadu [1988CriLJ1783]." ## (iv) In **Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court** reported in (2004) 13 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "4. At the very outset, we put it to the petitioner that a bare perusal of the petition shows that it is based _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 27 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 22[nd] 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." (v) In **Rohit Pandey v. Union of India** reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "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 12-22004. This petition was immediately filed on 16-2-2004 after the aforesaid second newspaper report 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 _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 28 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 if a token cost of rupees one thousand is imposed on the petitioner " ## (vi) In **Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra** **and Ors.** reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “18. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 29 maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See **State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu** (1995) ILLJ 622 SC, and **Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr.** [1994] 1 SCR 857. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See **Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran** (1996 CriLJ 3983)]. Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. 19. 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, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. It is also noticed that petitions are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several cases newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. 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.” _**W.P(C).14820/2021**_ 30 24. Giving due consideration to the principles of law, when this Court expressed its prima facie view of not entertaining the writ petition, Mr. Anil Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought for time. Writ petition has already been filed. No materials have been enclosed, supporting the averments and prayers sought for. We are not inclined to grant any adjournment. If the petitioner is able to secure material documents, it is open to him to do so. In the light of the above discussion, reliefs sought for by the petitioner in this public interest writ petition, cannot be granted. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice Sd/- Shaji P. Chaly, Judge sou.