IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21767 of 2008(S)
1. P.A.SIVARAMAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.S.KARTHIKA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :18/07/2008
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
W.P (C) No. 21767 of 2008
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008
Judgment
H.L. Dattu, C. J:
This is the second round of litigation by the very same petitioner who was
before this Court on an earlier occasion in O.P.No.35851 of 2000. This Court by
its order dated 2/8/2005 has disposed of the writ petition. The orders passed by this
Court is as under:
” 4. In order to provide remunerative prices
to the coconut growers, Government through
nodal agency NAFED is procuring copra in the
price support operations at Minimum Support
Price if the process fall below Minimum Support
Price. We are of the view, considering the
various steps taken by the State Government as
well as the Central Government, this Court is not
justified in giving any direction either to the State
Government or to the Central Government. We
are sure that the State Government would take
appropriate action to help the coconut farmers in
the State of Kerala. With the above observations,
this original petition is disposed of.”
2. The petitioner was not satisfied with the orders passed by this Court and
therefore, had filed a Special Leave Petition before the apex Court. The Special
Leave Petition came to be disposed of by the apex Court, holding that it may not
WP(C).21767/08 2
be appropriate at that stage to interfere with the decision of the High Court.
3. Now once again the petitioner is before this Court for the very same
relief that is sought for in O.P.No.35851 of 2000, disposed of 2nd of August
2005. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the respondents are not
taking appropriate steps to protect the interest of coconut farmers in Kerala.
4. In the earlier Writ Petition filed, petitioner’s request was for issuing
mandamus to the Central Government from importing Palm Oil into the country to
the detriment of coconut growers. This Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition,
however, had observed that the State Government would take appropriate action to
protect the interest of coconut farmers in Kerala. In the present Writ Petition, it is
complained that even after 3 years, the State Government and the Central
Government have failed to honour the clear undertaking given before this Court.
5. In our view, if for any reason the respondents have not complied with
the undertaking that they had given before this Court in the earlier Petition, the
petitioner has to file appropriate petition for appropriate relief.
6. The principles of constructive res judicata apply even in a proceedings
under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The earlier petition filed by
the petitioner having been dismissed, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the
self same question in this Writ Petition again only on the purported ground that
this Court had stated while dismissing the petition that the Government would take
appropriate action to help the coconut farmers in the State of Kerala.
WP(C).21767/08 3
7. In view of the above, we decline to entertain this petition. Accordingly
it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L. DATTU
Chief Justice
A.K. BASHEER
Judge
an.