IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38116 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MALAPPURAM POURA SAMITHI/PARISTHITHI SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI, VADAKKEMANNA P.O., KODOOR, MALAPPURAM - 676 504, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.K.HAMZA HAJI. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY, PERINTHALMANNA - 679 322, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 3. PERINTHALMANNA NAGARA VIKASANA SAMITHI, PERINTHALMANNA - 679 322, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER. 4. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. R2, R4 & R5 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT.K. MEERA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 38116 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The instant writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P9; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the respondents to finalize the proceedings already initiated under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and which was sought to be reviewed by the petitioner before the Government; iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the respondents to implement the directions in W.P.(C) No.36305/2007of this Hon'ble Court.” 2. We are only constrained to place it on record that we are of the opinion that the instant writ petition is sheer abuse of the process of the public interest litigation, apart from the fact that there is an utter lack of diligence which is expected in drafting the petition. We make it clear that even after spending considerable amount of time in reading each line of the pleadings, we are unable to know what exactly is WA No.38116 of 2010 -:2:- the legal frame of the pleadings. The language of the pleading is not only inelegant but also imprecise and the contents incoherent. A hazy picture emerging from the pleadings and submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner 'Samithi' is complaining against the decision of the respondents to construct a new bus stand within the area of Perinthalmanna town. The petitioner made vague averments regarding the conversion of 'certain' paddy land belonging to 'certain persons' who are not made parties to the writ petition. In order to demonstrate the vagueness of the pleadings we extract paragraph 4 of the pleadings. “4. Meanwhile, the 4th respondent, Nagara Vikasana Samithi consisting of land mafia in the area and certain politicians and persons with vested interests and owning land behind the plot offered by Sri.Ummar and others executed certain documents in favour of the Municipality conveying their title. Hence the said land has become vested in the Municipality viz.3.05 Acres of paddy land in Re-Sy.No.100/2,150/3, 4, 99/1, 2 and 3. Based on the application of the Nagara Vikasana Samithy, the District Collector, Malappuram as per order dated 17.05.2005, granted promotion for converting the said land into dry land.” 3. It is not even clear from the above whether the WA No.38116 of 2010 -:3:- decision of the Municipality to construct the bus stand is in the Survey numbers of the land mentioned in the above extracted portion of the pleadings. It is also not clear whether such a decision is taken after vesting of the land in the Municipality or prior to. It is not clear whether vesting is made either by way of gift or sale or there is any other legal documents. The whole proceeding is vague. In the circumstances, we reiterate that the petition is a sheer abuse of the process of public interest litigation. The Writ Petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of ` 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. If the amount is not paid as above, the Secretary of the Legal Services Authority would be at liberty to recover the same by resorting to appropriate proceedings under law. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb WA No.38116 of 2010 -:4:-