Vinod Chandran C. v. Agency for Non-Conventional Energy and Rural Technology (ANERT) and 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** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.1314 OF 2014(S)** ## **PETITIONER:** **VINOD CHANDRAN.C ARUN NIVAS, THAKAZHI P.O., KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.G.PAVITHRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE AGENCY FOR NON- CONVENTIONAL ENERGY AND RURAL TECHNOLOGY (ANERT) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ANERT OFFICE, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.** - **2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (POWER) DEPARTMENT OF POWER, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM PIN 695 001.** - **3 SURESH BABU MAVU VILA VEEDU, MUTTADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 025.** **ADDL. M.SHAMSUDEEN R4 MUKKUMTHALA AKATH VEEDU, T.C.17/1106, KATT ROAD, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012.** **ADDL. M.T. MOHANRAJ R5 SATHYAVILASAM BUNGLOW, CHENKAI, ARAYUR PO, AMARAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 122.** **ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.1.2014 IN I.A.NO.1260/14.** **R4 BY ADVS. SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.MR.S.KALKURA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH** WP(C).No.1314 OF 2014(S) 2 **R5 BY ADVS. SRI.P.BIJIMON SRI. R.T.PRADEEP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.1314 OF 2014(S) 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **S.MANIKUMAR, CJ** ## Instant public interest writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: i) call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P9 and peruse them. ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed by the 2[nd] and 1[st] respondent in so far as it relates to the regularisation of appointment of the 3[rd] respondent. iii) Issue a writ of quo warranto to the 3[rd] respondent and declare that the 3[rd] respondent is not legally entitled to continue in the post of Technician on a regular basis as he is not legally selected and appointed. iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to the 2[nd] respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 representation dated 6.11.2013 within a time specified by this Hon'ble Court. v) issue a writ of mandamus to the 2[nd] respondent to issue necessary orders to the 1[st] respondent not to engage a person like the 3[rd] respondent who has suppressed material facts and misrepresented facts before the government and obtained orders to the 1[st] respondent to appoint him. vi) Issue such other writ, direction or order deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case. vii) award cost of the petitioner in this proceedings. WP(C).No.1314 OF 2014(S) 4 2. Though Mr.K.G.Pavitharan, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that there are serious irregularities in the matter of regularisation of services of employees of ANERT, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, for the reason that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions held that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters. 3. In **Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B** ., reported in [(2004) 3 SCC 349], the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 5 to 16, held as follows:- “5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression “public interest litigation”. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 (4th Edn.), “public interest” is defined thus: “Public interest.—(1) 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’.” 6. In Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn.), “public interest” is defined as follows: “Public interest.—Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government.” WP(C).No.1314 OF 2014(S) 5 7. In **Janata Dal** case [(1992) 4 SCC 305 = 1993 SCC (Cri) 36] this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, this Court has laid down as follows: “The expression ‘litigation’ means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression ‘PIL’ means a 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.” 8. In para 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows: “Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise 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.” 9. In para 98 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 busybody 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.” 10. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows: “It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can WP(C).No.1314 OF 2014(S) 6 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.” 11. 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 grievances 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 substantial rights and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing the 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 tax cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenus 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 busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real 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 publicity, break the queue WP(C).No.1314 OF 2014(S) 7 muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions of luxury litigants who have nothing to lose but trying to gain for nothing and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants. 12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to 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, courts must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of 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 by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs. 13. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined “public interest litigation” in its Report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows: “Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to WP(C).No.1314 OF 2014(S) 8 efforts which provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.” 14. 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; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. 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. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. 15. 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** ((1994) 2 SCC 481 = 1994 SCC (L&S) 676) and **A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills** WP(C).No.1314 OF 2014(S) 9 [(1994) 2 SCC 647 = AIR 1994 SC 2151]. 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 **Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr)** v. **K. Parasaran** [(1996) 5 SCC 530 = 1996 SCC (Cri) 1038 = JT 1996 (7) SC 265]. Today people rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. Self-styled saviours who have no face or ground in the midst of public at large, of late, try to use such litigations to keep themselves busy and their names in circulation, despite having really become defunct in actual public life and try to smear and smirch the solemnity of court proceedings. They must really inspire confidence in courts and among the public, failing which such litigation should be axed with a heavy hand and dire consequences. 16. 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 a large number of so- called public interest litigations, whereas only 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 a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts at times are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in **Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra** (1998) 7 SCC 273, this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of the so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. This tendency is being slowly permitted to percolate for setting in motion WP(C).No.1314 OF 2014(S) 10 criminal law jurisdiction, often unjustifiably just for gaining publicity and giving adverse publicity to their opponents. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out whether it was a bona fide venture. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs, as it prima facie gives impression about oblique motives involved, and in most cases shows proxy litigation. Where the petitioner has not even a remote link with the issues involved, it becomes imperative for the court to lift the veil and uncover the real purpose of the petition and the real person behind it. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.” ## 4. In **Seema Dharmdhere, Secretary, Maharashtra Public** **Service Commission vs. State of Maharashtra,** reported in [(2008) 2 SCC 290], the Hon'ble Apex Court restated that PIL is not maintainable in service matters. Same was the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in **Dr.B.Singh v. Union of India and Others** [(2004)3 SCC 363] and **Gurupal Singh v. State of Punjab and Others** [(2005) 5 SCC 136]. WP(C).No.1314 OF 2014(S) 11 In the light of the above decisions and discussions, the instant writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. **Sd/-** **S.MANIKUMAR** **CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/-** smv **SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE** WP(C).No.1314 OF 2014(S) 12 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 EXT.P-1: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P 8927/02 DATED 2.8.02** - **EXHIBIT P2 EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A.O.1138/HRM 1/2010/ANERT DT.27.8.2010** - **EXHIBIT P3 EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.27.5.11** **EXHIBIT P4 EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.569/HRM 1/2010/ANERT DT.22.6.2011 SENT BY THE DIRECTOR, ANERT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.8.7.2011 ISSUED BY ADDL.SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.11.12 SUBMITTED BY PRAVEEN CHAND.** - **EXHIBIT P7 EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O(MS) 32/2013/PD DT.5.7.13** - **EXHIBIT P8 EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.156/HRM/ANERT/2013 DT.5.7.13** - **EXHIBIT P9 EXT.P-9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.6.11.13 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**