IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36575 of 2008(S)
1. KUNNAKKOTTUMALA BHAGAVATHI MUTHAPPAN
... Petitioner
2. K.K.RAJAN, S/O.KRISHNAN
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
4. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
5. VILLAGE OFFICER
6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
7. SUDHEER C.M., S/O.MUSTAFA
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.ANANDAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :11/12/2008
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.36575 of 2008-S
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 11th December, 2008
JUDGMENT
Basheer,J.
Petitioner No.1 is stated to be the President of Kunnakkattumala
Bhagavathi Muthappan Temple at Okkal and petitioner No.2 is its former
President. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that the proposed
establishment of a plastic factory in the locality concerned, where the temple
is situated, will cause grave environmental problems and harm to the local
residents.
(2) The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ in the
nature of mandamus to respondents 2 to 5 to dispose of Exhibits P1 to P7
representations submitted by the petitioners, before a decision is taken in the
matter pursuant to Exhibit P9 notice issued by the local Grama Panchayat.
(3) Before we consider the question of tenability of the above
prayer, it is pertinent to note that petitioner No.2 in this writ petition was a
party in W.P.(C).No.32590 of 2008, filed by respondent No.7 herein, who
proposes to set up the above factory. In that writ petition, respondent No.7
herein had prayed for a direction to the Panchayat to consider his application
WP(C).36575/2008-S
– 2 –
for setting up the factory without any delay. This Court had disposed of the
writ petition by judgment dated 5.11.2008, directing the Panchayat to take a
decision on the application submitted by respondent No.7, since, according
to the learned Judge, there was no justification on the part of the Panchayat
to refuse to take a decision. The concluding paragraph in the above
judgment is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience:
“When an application is submitted, the Panchayat has a
duty to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereof in
accordance with law. The fact that some people of the locality
have objected to the same, is no reason to refuse to pass orders
on the application. In the above circumstances, this writ petition
is disposed of with a direction to the competent among the
respondents to pass final orders on Ext.P5 in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well
as the 3rd respondent”.
(4) It can be seen from the above judgment that petitioner
No.2 herein, who was respondent No.3 in that writ petition, was also
directed to be heard by the Panchayat before considering the application
filed by respondent No.7. Thus, obviously, petitioner No.2 had been
afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter which, necessarily,
means that he could have raised whatever objections he may have as against
WP(C).36575/2008-S
– 3 –
the establishment of the factory in question.
(5) It is on record that pursuant to the direction issued by this
Court in the aforesaid judgment, the Panchayat has issued Exhibit P9 notice,
inviting all the parties for a hearing scheduled to be held on December 10,
2008. It is at this juncture that the petitioners have preferred this writ
petition.
(6) The second prayer in the present writ petition is to stay the
entire proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P9 notice till the disposal of the writ
petition, which means that petitioner No.2, who was a party to Exhibit P8
judgment, wants the Panchayat not only to be interdicted from taking a
decision in the light of the direction issued by this Court in Exhibit P8
judgment, but also to ignore the said direction. In our view, the attempt of at
least petitioner No.2 is nothing but a clever design to interfere with the
administration of justice. We cannot countenance such a situation. In that
view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that this so-called “public
interest litigation” is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court, which
cannot be encouraged at all.
(7) We refrain from making any further observation, since the
Panchayat is bound to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law
and on the merits of the application, if any, submitted by respondent No.7 in
the light of the observations made by this Court in Exhibit P8 judgment.
WP(C).36575/2008-S
– 4 –
(8) Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we
have no hesitation to dismiss the writ petition, holding it as a mischievous
and frivolous petition. We do so.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
A.K.Basheer
vku/- Judge