IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 20414 of 2007(S)
1. K.V.KUMARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SHRI. V.S.ACHUTHANANDAN,
3. SHRI. PINARAYI VIJAYAN,
4. SHRI. VELIYAM BHARGAVAN,
5. SHRI. ISMAIL,
6. SHRI. K.SURESH KUMAR, I.A.S.,
7. SHRI. RAJU NARAYANA SWAMY,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.KUMARAN (PARTY-IN-PERSON)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :04/07/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.
----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 20414 OF 2007
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th July, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, C.J.
Petitioner is an advocate and also the Chairman of Social
Democratic Party. He is also a tax payer. The primary relief that he is
seeking in his petition is to direct sixth and seventh respondents in the writ
petition to go ahead with the eviction of encroachers in the Munnar area
ignoring the instructions issued by the Chief Minister of the State or any
other authority.
2. The basis for the allegations made in this petition is only
newspaper reports. Apart from this, there is no other evidence produced by
the petitioner in support of the assertion and allegation in the Writ Petition.
In a scenario like this, can we entertain the so-called Public Interest filed by
the petitioner. We need not have to make a research to search for an
answer for the question we have posed. The Supreme Court in the case of
Kushum Lata v. Union of India and others ((2006) 6 SCC 180), has
observed as under:
“It is also noticed that the 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
aforestated 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). NO.20414 OF 2007 S
:: 2 ::
3. Precious time of the court is being wasted in dealing with this type
of public interest litigation where the allegations are made in the petition
solely based on newspaper reports. In our view, filing of this type of
litigation should be discouraged as observed by the Supreme Court by
rejecting the petitions at the initial stage itself.
4. In view of the above, keeping in view the observations made by
the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, this petition requires to be
rejected and it is rejected. But keeping in view that this petition is filed by a
lawyer, we do not intend to impose any costs.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
Chief Justice
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/
H.L.DATTU, C.J. &
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
—————————————
—————————————
W.P.(C).NO. 20414 OF 2007S
JUDGMENT
4th July, 2007
—————————————-