IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 6189 of 2007(J)
1. V.RAGINI, D/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
3. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :27/02/2007
O R D E R
K.K. DENESAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 6189 OF 2007 J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th February, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking
the following reliefs:
“i) Call for the records leading to Ext.
P3 and P5 and quash the same by issuing a
writ in the nature of certiorari.
ii) Issue such other writ, order or
direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper on the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice.”
2. She had filed W.P.(C) No. 6643 of 2005 for
identical reliefs. Before that writ petition could be
considered and disposed of on merits, the petitioner
filed a ‘not pressed memo’. Hence, W.P.(C) No. 6643
of 2005 was dismissed on 5-7-2006 as not pressed. The
petitioner did not seek orders to reserve her right to
approach this Court, for a second time. The judgment
dismissing W.P.(C) No. 6643 of 2005 also did not
reserve any right to the petitioner to file one more
writ petition seeking identical reliefs and on
identical grounds. Now after the lapse of seven months
from the date of disposal of the first writ petition,
WPC No.6189 /2007 -2-
the petitioner has come up with this writ petition
praying for the grant of the same reliefs.
2. Ext. P5, under challenge both in the earlier
writ petition and in this writ petition, is the very
same order of the Government affirming Ext. P3 decision
taken by the Director of Agriculture. The petitioner’s
appeal filed before the Government was found to be
stale one, and despite that, the Government considered
the matter on merits and concluded that the facts and
the materials made it clear that there was
insubordination and dereliction of duty on the part of
the petitioner. However, no penalty was imposed and
the petitioner was let off with a warning. It was that
order which was challenged in the earlier writ
petition. Now, the very same relief and challenge is
sought to be revived as though the petitioner is free
to file writ petitions repeatedly, according to her
whims and fancies. In the affidavit filed in support
of the averments in the writ petition she has stated
that she has not filed writ petitions earlier on the
same cause of action. This is an ingenious statement
intended to get the W.P.(C) numbered by the Registry.
WPC No.6189 /2007 -3-
3. This Court shall not be taken for a ride by
parties who think that they can invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India according to their
whims and fancies. Such kind of abuse of the process
of law will result in waste of time, energy and money.
Courts which bear the brunt of docket explosion shall
not be the playfield of such experimental adventurism
of unscrupulous litigants. The above writ petition is
barred by res-judicata. It is an abuse of the process
of this Court. Hence, the petitioner shall be directed
to pay exemplary costs. The writ petition is dismissed
with costs fixed at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the
petitioner to the Kerala Legal Services Authority.
This shall be done within two months. Copies of this
judgment shall be forwarded by the Registry to the 1st
respondent as also the Secretary, K.E.L.S.A., for
information.
K.K. DENESAN
JUDGE
jan/