Saji Joseph v. State of Kerala and Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited and its Chairman and Managing Director

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 FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942 ## WP(C).No.4149 OF 2021(S) ## PETITIONER: SAJI JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. T.P. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT THIRUTHANATHIL HOUSE, CHAMPANNOOR, ANGAMALY SOUTH P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 573. BY ADVS. SRI. V. HARISH SRI. RAJAN VISHNURAJ ## RESPONDENTS: - 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. - 2 KERALA STATE BAMBOO CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, P.B. NO. 20, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM-683 573. - 3 THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE BAMBOO CORPORATION LIMITED, P.B. NO. 20, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM-683 573. - 4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BAMBOO CORPORATION LIMITED, P.B. NO. 20, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM 683 573. R1 BY ADV. SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SMT. LATHA ANAND, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C):4149/2021 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **S. Manikumar, CJ** Challenging Exhibit-P7 notification said to have been issued and obtained from the website of the Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited, represented by the Chairman, Ernakulam, respondent No.2, instant Public Interest Litigation is filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs: - I. Call for the entire records leading to Exhibit P7 relating to the proposed recruitment and to quash the same to the extent of appointment of Plant Workers, Depot Workers, and Unskilled Workers, by issuance of a writ of _certiorari_ or other appropriate writ direction or order; - II. Declare that the 2[nd] respondent may conduct the fresh recruitment process only after the improvement in its financial position and payment of the pending dues to all its employees, retired employees, and the statutory authorities; - III. Declare that the 2[nd] respondent is duty bound to conduct a proper test and interview for recruitment, for the key posts like Finance Manager, Marketing Manager, Mechanical Manager, and Civil Engineer. 2. Facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that petitioner Mr. Saji Joseph, an Advocate by profession, has claimed that he is the General Secretary of Bamboo Board Factory Workers' Union. He has stated that there is abuse of power by respondents 2 to WP(C):4149/2021 3 4 viz., Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited, represented by the Chairman, Ernakulam; the Chairman, KSBCL; and its Managing Director, respectively, in making appointments to the post of Plant Workers, Depot Workers, and Unskilled Workers, in order to accommodate the sympathizers of ruling party in the Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited. 3. According to the petitioner, as per Exhibits-P6 and P7, the 2[nd] respondent Corporation is intending to make appointments to various posts, including that of Plant Workers, Depot workers, and Unskilled Workers. He has contended that for some other key posts, the Corporation has decided to avoid test and recruit only through interview. 4. Petitioner has further stated that for hundreds of years, Dalit and Adivasi communities of Kerala have transformed bamboo reeds into a variety of productions, with functional and ornamental uses. Their creativity and ability to adapt to the changing demands saw the weavers making varieties of baskets, mats, winnowers, window screens, bags etc. 5. Petitioner has further stated that the respondent Corporation is already reeling in numerous litigations, involving non-payment of dues to its employees and statutory fees etc., as evident from Exhibits-P1 to P5. WP(C):4149/2021 4 6. As a result of the above, the original work force had been cut short to 62 members from 80 during 2011. 7. It is also stated that most of the workers presently, have worked only for 80 days in an year and their salary was kept pending, due to some financial exigencies. According to the petitioner, the actual work available at present can be easily completed by 40 employees, and 22 employees are in excess. 8. Petitioner has further stated that the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation has issued demand notices, seeking payment of contribution amounts, due to the employer, as well as to the employees. The 2[nd] respondent has challenged the demand notices before this Court in W.P.(C) No.2624 of 2019 and vide Exhibit-P1 judgment dated 29.01.2019, a learned single Judge of this Court, disposed of the said writ petition, permitting the Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited, petitioner therein, to discharge its liabilities to the EPF Organisation in 20 installments and with a further direction that the regular contributions due, shall also be paid by the Corporation. 9. Petitioner has further stated that though such a relief was granted to the 2[nd] respondent, the Corporation was unable to make the payments and subsequently, sought for a review of the said judgment, in R.P. No.450 of 2019. Thereafter, vide Exhibit-P2 order WP(C):4149/2021 5 dated 3.7.2019, this Court permitted the 2[nd] respondent to remit the entire arrears in 62 installments, taking into consideration its financial situation. 10. In the meanwhile, petitioner had an occasion to come across articles in digital and print media dated 19.09.2020 (ExhibitsP3 and P4), wherein it is stated that the Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited, is in huge financial debt, standing at a loss of over Rs.80 Crores and, therefore, the Corporation is unable to meet the statutory payments due to its employees. 11. Hence, the petitioner has approached the Human Rights Commission and sought interference. Therein, a statement has been filed by the Corporation stating that it has an accumulated loss of about Rs.80 Crores and that the Corporation is being run only on the financial assistance of the Government. 12. Petitioner has further stated that considering the dire financial crises of the 2[nd] Corporation, vide order dated 11.06.2020, the 1[st] respondent, State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram, has sanctioned an amount of Rs.3 Crores to the Corporation, as an interim measure, to ensure that the respondent resumes production, and the said amount would be treated as working capital loan, repayable by the 2[nd] respondent, within 5 years. In furtherance of the above, the petitioner came to WP(C):4149/2021 6 know that an amount of Rs.1.5 Crores was also released to the 2[nd] respondent by the Industries Department. Despite the receipt of above amounts, the 2[nd] respondent has not been able to pay off its statutory dues or even its liabilities. 13. Petitioner has further stated that while the matter stood thus, he had another occasion to see an advertisement in Exhibit-P6 daily dated 13.01.2021, wherein it is stated that applications were called for appointments to the post of Plant Workers, Depot Workers, Unskilled Workers, Finance Manager, Marketing Manager, Civil Engineer, and Mechanical Engineer, in the 2[nd] respondent Corporation. Hence, he obtained Exhibit-P7 notification from the website of the 2[nd] respondent. 14. Petitioner has contended that while appointments to the post of Finance Manager, Marketing Manager, Civil Engineer, and Mechanical Engineer, may be a requirement for the 2[nd] respondent, to improve the functioning of the Corporation, the appointments now sought to be made are unnecessary, in as much as half the present employees have worked only for about 80 days in a year. According to him, the appointments now made are in order to include the workers and sympathizers of the ruling party in the roll of the 2[nd] respondent Corporation. 15. Referring to Exhibit-P8 office order dated 03.03.2016, WP(C):4149/2021 7 petitioner has stated that several backdoor entries have been made by the 2[nd] respondent in such manner and later-on, regularised the same, at the instance of the then ruling party. He has also referred to Exhibit-P9, a newspaper article dated 9.2.2021 published in Manorama daily, and submitted that recently the Chairman of the 2[nd] respondent Corporation, has made a statement in a press meet that, they will appoint the ruling party sympathizers, who apply for the above mentioned posts, and that, as the Chairman, during an interview for the posts, would give marks to the applications, and that there is nothing wrong in the same. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for the reliefs stated supra. 16. On the above pleadings, petitioner has raised the following grounds: - A. Exhibit-P9 newspaper article dated 9.2.2021 clearly indicates the personal bias of the 3[rd] respondent in the recruitment process. Hence, it is evident that the recruitment process now initiated through Exhibit-P7 is with a _mala fide_ intention. The policy decision, as well as the action and manner of the recruitment of employees, through Exhibit-P7, by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 suffer from arbitrariness, unreasonableness and absurdity. Hence, the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court to ensure that the public interest is protected to save the 2[nd] respondent Corporation. - B. The act of respondents Nos. 2 to 4, to recruit an additional workforce, consisting of Plant Workers, Depot WP(C):4149/2021 8 Workers, and Unskilled Workers, in addition to the existing workforce of the 2[nd] respondent Corporation, is _per se_ detrimental to the proper functioning of the Corporation and is done, with the sole intention to accommodate the sympathizers of ruling party into the roll of the 2[nd] respondent Corporation. This is illegally done with _mala fide_ interests and abuse of the taxpayer's money from the public exchequer. - C. The 2[nd] respondent is in a state of acute financial exigency that it is presently surviving and staying afloat solely on the financial assistance being provided by the Government as admitted by the 4[th] respondent. Even then, the dues to its employees remain unpaid and pending in a string of litigations. However, they are ignoring all these aspects and have decided to go in for fresh recruitment. According to the petitioner, the same is only to accommodate the members and sympathizers of the ruling party just on the eve of the impending elections. Any attempt to make fresh appointments, that too, in large numbers, as Plant Workers, Depot Workers, and Unskilled Workers, may be resorted to only after the financial debts are settled or cleared by the 2[nd] respondent. Hence, Exhibit-P7 recruitment may not be permitted till the financial situation in the 2[nd] respondent improves and the dues are settled. - D. It is to be noted that earlier there were two shifts, working in the 2[nd] respondent, which had been reduced to a single shift, due to the decrease in demand, and also the shortage of supply of reed. As of now, the employees have worked only for about hardly 80 days in a year and, that too, only for about 38 employees, and the rest of the employees are sitting idle throughout the year. Thus, WP(C):4149/2021 9 there is no requirement, at present, for further employees and even the employees, who are on the rolls, are being paid their salary only in installments, that too, with huge delay. Recovery proceedings are pending against the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in relation to the nonpayment of its statutory dues to various retired employees and moreover, contempt applications are also pending, seeking the compliance of the directions to make immediate payments to the employees. Appointment of further more employees in the cadre of Plant Workers, Depot Workers and Unskilled Workers will create further burden on the Corporation to disburse salary and other benefits of even the existing workers of the Corporation. E. Perusal of Exhibit-P5 statement of the 4[th] respondent dated 12.03.2019 would reveal that the defense taken by the Corporation in various pending litigations is the acute financial crisis, which, however, is not seen reflected in the attempt to make fresh recruitment. The entire exercise, therefore, lacks _bona fides,_ illegal, unjust, improper, and is liable to be interfered by this Court in public interest. F. That apart, perusal of Exhibit P9 would reveal that the 3[rd] respondent has openly declared their intention that they are only interested to hire the sympathizers of the ruling party to the posts of Plant Workers, Depot Workers and Unskilled Workers. This is _per se_ illegal and clear abuse of power and authority by the 3[rd] respondent. Petitioner has contended that as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Manohar Lal Sharma** v. **Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors** reported in (2017) 16 SCC 442, he has approached this Court for protection of WP(C):4149/2021 10 the rights of the public from the abuse of power by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4. - G. Referring to Exhibit P8 petitioner has contended that it is a usual practice of the ruling Government that new recruits, who are taken into the roll of the 2[nd] respondent, are then regularized. This is constantly done by the 2[nd] respondent at the instance of the Government in power and thus, caused additional financial burden to the already existing liabilities of the 2[nd] respondent. - H. The decision to conduct appointments to key posts like Finance Manager, Mechanical Engineer, Marketing Manager, Civil Engineer, etc., without conducting proper test, and only through interview is unfair, illegal, and is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 17. Based on the above grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions. 18. Heard Mr. Rajan Vishnuraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the material on record. 19. Exhibit-P6 is the advertisement made in Mathrubhumi daily dated 13.01.2021, and it reads thus: “13.01.2021 Wednesday Mathrubhumi Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited P.B. No.20, Angamaly South - 683 573 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited invites applications to the post of the following: 1. Finance Manager 2. Marketing Manager 3. Civil Engineer 4. Mechanical Engineer WP(C):4149/2021 11 Details and instructions for applying to the above mentioned posts are available in the Board's website www.bambooworldindia.com. Last date for applying online is on 23.01.2021. Applications submitted without following the instructions will be rejected summarily. 12.01.2021 Sd/- Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited P.B. No.20, Angamaly South - 683 573 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Applications to the following posts in the units operating under Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited: 1. Plant Worker - Bamboo Board Factory, Angamaly. 2. Depot Worker - Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited. 3. Unskilled Worker - Hitech Bamboo Flooring Tile Factory. Details and instructions for applying to the above mentioned posts are available in the Board's website www.bambooworldindia.com. Last date for applying online is on 23.01.2021. Applications submitted without following the instructions will be rejected summarily. 12.01.2021 Sd/Managing Director ## 20. Exhibit-P7 is the impugned notification obtained from the website of the 2[nd] respondent Corporation, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: “Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd. Building a Successful Bamboo Community Applications are invited from candidates for Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd., based on qualification mentioned below. Interested candidates may send their application through our website on or before 27.01.2021, 05.00 pm. Mode of Selection: Test/Interview” Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd. Building a Successful Bamboo Community WP(C):4149/2021 12 |Home|Home|About||Company|Company|Bamboo<br>in Kerala|Products|Products|Gallery|Gallery|Contact|Contact|Carriers|Carriers| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |||||||||||||||| |1|Plant Worker<br>(KSBC/21/R/<br>005)||17 nos||1.<br>2.<br>3.<br>4.<br>5.|SSLC,<br>preference will<br>be given to<br>those who have<br>pass ITI.<br>Height 162 cm<br>(Min)<br>Weight-48<br>kg<br>(Min)<br>Priority will be<br>given to the<br>children<br>of<br>traditional<br>Reed. Bamboo<br>workers<br>and<br>Mat weavers.<br>10 Years Age<br>relaxation<br>benefits will be<br>given only for<br>the candidates<br>those<br>who<br>belong to Depot<br>workers<br>in<br>Kerala<br>State<br>Bamboo<br>Corporation Ltd.||||18-35 as<br>on<br>01.01.202<br>1||2750-70-<br>3800-75-<br>4625||Apply| |2|Depot<br>Worker<br>(KSBC/21/R/<br>006)||15 nos||1.<br>2.<br>3.<br>4.|SSLC,<br>preference will<br>be given to<br>those who have<br>pass ITI.<br>Height 162 cm<br>(Min)<br>Weight-48<br>kg<br>(Min)<br>Priority will be<br>given to the<br>children<br>of<br>traditional<br>Reed. Bamboo<br>workers<br>and<br>Mat weavers.||||18-35 as<br>on<br>01.01.202<br>1||2000-50-<br>2250-75-<br>3750||Apply| |3|Unskilled<br>worker<br>(High tech<br>Bamboo<br>flooring title<br>Factory,<br>Kozhikode||10 nos||1.<br>2.<br>3.|SSLC,<br>preference will<br>be given to<br>those who have<br>pass ITI.<br>Height 162 cm<br>(Min)<br>Weight-48<br>kg<br>(Min)||||18-35 as<br>on<br>01.01.202<br>1||2750-70-<br>3800-75-<br>4625||Apply| WP(C):4149/2021 13 |4.|Finance<br>manager<br>(KSBC/21/R/<br>001)|1 nos|CA or ICWA|1 year experience in a<br>reputed large or<br>medium<br>scale<br>company in a senior<br>position in finance<br>department||| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ||||M. Com with CA<br>Intermediate|3 year experience in a<br>reputed large or<br>medium<br>scale<br>company in a senior<br>position in finance<br>department||| |5.|Marketing<br>Manager<br>(KSBC/21/R/<br>002)|1 nos|MBA from recognised<br>University accrued<br>through a full time<br>course<br>with<br>specialization<br>in<br>marketing|Minimum 2 years<br>experience in the<br>field of marketing<br>preference will be<br>given to those who<br>have experience in<br>companies<br>were<br>production<br>and<br>marketing of plywood<br>is carried out.|35 years<br>as<br>on<br>01.01.2021|Rs.6675<br>-175-<br>7550-<br>200-<br>10550<br>Apply| |6.|Mechanical<br>Engineer<br>(KSBC/21/R/<br>003)|2 nos|B-Tech in Mechanical<br>engineering with 1st<br>class<br>from<br>a<br>recognized University|2 year experience in a<br>reputed company of<br>wood<br>industry<br>preferable in the field<br>of wood treating etc.|35 years<br>as<br>on<br>01.01.2021|Rs.6675<br>-175-<br>7550-<br>200-<br>10550<br>Apply| |7.|Civil<br>engineer<br>(KSBC/21/R/<br>004)|1 Nos|B-Tech<br>in<br>Civil<br>engineering with 1st<br>class<br>from<br>a<br>recognised University|2 year experience in a<br>reputed company|35 years<br>as<br>on<br>01.01.2021|Rs.6675<br>-175-<br>7550-<br>200-<br>10550<br>Apply| 21. Exhibit-P9 is the newspaper article dated 9.2.2021 published in Malayala Manorama daily and it reads thus: “Malayala Manorama Appointment to Bamboo Corporation; No problem aiding LDF candidates, says the Chairman 'Appointments are transparent' Angamaly: The Chairman of the Bamboo Corporation K. J. Jacob, under the leadership of LDF has stated that there is no issue in aiding LDF people to job get appointed there. “Those who have connection with LDF party wishes to have our help to get appointed here. If it WP(C):4149/2021 14 is possible to do something for that, we will do it. But it will be done fairly. Chairman has the right to grant marks in interview. What is the problem in giving that mark to the sympathizers and supports?” he asks. He says that appointments are transparent and nobody can interfere in it. Public sector institution has appointed to conduct the test. Appointment to jobs will be only after interview and the permission of the High Court accordingly, says K.J Jacob.” 22. It is evident from the pleadings that the Government on 11.06.2020 have sanctioned a sum of Rs.3 Crores to the Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited, respondent No.2, as working capital, repayable within 5 years. According to the petitioner, in spite of release of Rs.1.5 Crores, the 2[nd] respondent was not able to pay off its statutory dues or even its liabilities. He has further stated that in 2011, there was a reduction in workforce. Further contention is that, because of the alleged statement made by the Chairman of the Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited, respondent No.2, as reported in a newspaper, only the ruling party members and its sympathizers will alone be appointed. When the 2[nd] respondent is facing financial constraints, recruitment would be detrimental to the proper functioning of the Corporation. 23. Petitioner has further contended that when recovery proceedings are pending, recruitment sought to be made, is illegal. WP(C):4149/2021 15 Regularisation of a Plant Worker, made in the year 2016, is also cited as one of the reasons for the prayers sought for. 24. Merely because there was reduction in workforce, in the year 2011, it cannot be contended that there shall not be any recruitment in the subsequent years, and moreso, after 10 years. So also, merely because the 2[nd] respondent is in financial constraints, to pay off its liabilities, and that, there are litigations between the employees and the Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited, 2[nd] respondent, there would not be a ground to contend that the 2[nd] respondent should not make any recruitment to the posts, notified. 25. It is trite that recruitment, in any institution, is made, depending upon the need, for the proper functioning of such institution. Even taking it for granted that the 2[nd] respondent is facing a financial constraint, in a given case, there could be retirement, resignation, etc., causing vacancies in some posts, and there may be a recruitment to create posts. Contention that there should be total ban on recruitment, for the reasons stated above, cannot be countenanced. 26. Bias alleged on the basis of a newspaper report cannot be accepted, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that newspaper report cannot be the basis of Public Interest Litigation. On the said aspect, let us consider a few decisions. WP(C):4149/2021 16 (i) In **Laxmi Raj Shetty and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu** reported in (1988) 3 SCC 319, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “32...............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 aliened. 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 newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. 33. 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 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 No. 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 said: “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 WP(C):4149/2021 17 account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible.” (ii) In **Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court** reported in (2004) 13 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "At the very outset, we put it to the petitioner that a bare perusal of the petition shows that it is based 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." (iii) In **Rohit Pandey v. Union of India** reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702, Hon'ble Apex 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 25-12004, and the other dated 12-2-2004. This petition WP(C):4149/2021 18 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 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 " (iv) In **Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors.** [(2007) 14 SCC 281], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: WP(C):4149/2021 19 “18. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must 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.” WP(C):4149/2021 20 27. Bias alleged is purely apprehensive and not substantiated. Regularisation said to have been made in the year 2016, cannot be a subject matter in this writ petition of the year 2021. None of the grounds made in this writ petition are justifiable to grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/S. Manikumar Chief Justice Sd/Shaji P. Chaly Judge krj WP(C):4149/2021 21 ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: - EXHIBIT P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO. 2624 OF 2019 DATED 29.01.2019. - EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.P. 450 OF 2019 DATED 03.07.2019. - EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM https://www.thenewsminute. com/article/once-famousbamboo-productskerala-village-losing-its-tradition-117043. - EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY ON 19.09.2020 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN HRMP 6960/17/EKM FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.03.2019 - EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT MADE IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 13.01.2021 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OBTAINED FROM THE WEB SITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IE. http://www. bambooworldindia.co,/global index.php?fname=jobvacancy - EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 03.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT REGULARIZING THE POST OF A PLANT WORKER. - EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 09.02.2021 PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** //true copy/ P.A. TO C.J.