IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 7384 of 2007(D)
1. FR.ANTONY PATHIL, ST.THOMAS CHURCH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED,
3. GENERAL MANAGER,
4. DIVISISONAL ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PREM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :06/03/2007
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.7384 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Priest. As the Vicar of the Church, he
filed W.P(C).28211/05, seeking a direction to the BSNL to
commence operation of land line telephone exchange in a
building constructed in the property belonging to the Church on
the allegation that the said building was constructed as
requested by the BSNL and that the BSNL had paid rent for a
few months. This Court dismissed that writ petition holding that
in the realm of contracts even if the petitioner has any right to
relief on an alleged breech of contract it is beyond the realm of
the writ court. That judgment was dated 4.10.2005. Two
persons, thereafter, filed W.P(C).1289/06. Learned counsel for
the department submits that the first petitioner in that writ
petition was appearing as a counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C).
28211/05. In W.P(C).1289/06, the request was for a direction to
establish a telephone exchange at Mavady, as originally
proposed. That writ petition ended in the judgment dated
WPC.7384/07
Page numbers
30.1.2006, disposing it off. It obviously shows that it was
nothing but the old wine in a new bottle and was not materially
different from the objectives sought to be achieved by W.P(C).
28211/05. Now this writ petition is filed through yet another
lawyer, obviously even without properly instructing him
regarding the filing and results of the earlier writ petitions. In
this writ petition directions are sought for to consider certain
representations which are placed on record, voicing the selfsame
request that led to the earlier writ petitions. Repeated scouting
of the writ court is something that the Priest, the petitioner
ought to have avoided since the office that he holds as a
depository of trust and confidence among the common people
requires into act much better. I am inclined to impose very
heavy cost on the petitioner. Since the petitioner is a Vicar of
the Church, I hold back myself from imposing any order of costs.
The writ petition is dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Judge
kkb.