IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17408 of 2009(S) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SHAIJU,S/O.PRABHAKARAN,AGED 35 YEARS, TC 68/2475(3),GURU PUSHPAM,THIRUVALLOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-27. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION, LMS JUNCTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION,PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. KOMALAN,S/O.CHANDRANANDAN, MUDIPPURA VILA PUTHEN VEEDU,KATTACHALKUZHI DESOM,VENGANOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. ANIL KUMAR,S/O.GOVINDAN,BABA NILAYAM, UPANIYOOR DESOM,KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. RADHAKRISHNAN,S/O.KRISHNAN, PANANVILA VEEDU,KOTTUKAL DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1,R2, R3 & R5 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R4 BY ADV.SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE, SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR & SMT.SUSHYA RAJAN R6 TO R8 BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE & SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.17408 OF 2009-S APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.13104/09 DATED 5.5.09 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.13159/09 DATED 26.5.09 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.6.09 MADE BY THE RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.6.09 MADE BY THE RESIDETS' ASSOCIATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAITN DATED 10.6.09 MADE BY THE RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P6 PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P7 PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.6.09 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R8(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE LICENCE NO.30/2008-09 IN RESPECT OF TODDY SHOP NO.3/08-09 ISSUED BY THE ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 4.4.2008 EXT.R9(A) ENGLISH TRANSLATION S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.17408 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this, the 6th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. Time has come not only to weed out writ petitions filed by unscrupulous people under the guise of public interest though, in fact, the object is something else but also to prevent such misuse. 2. The present writ petition is filed by one Sri.Shaiju, son of Prabhakaran as against eight respondents basically challenging the licence issued for a toddy shop referred to in the writ petition with the prayers to issue a writ of mandamus to respondents 4 to 6 therein to take action in respect of Exts.P3 to P5 and to declare that respondents 7 and 8 or anybody else to whom the licence in respect of toddy shop No.3 of Thiruvananthapuram Abkari Range is granted for the year W.P.(C) No.17408 of 2009 -:2:- 2009-2010 is entitled to house the said shop in the unauthorised shed put up in the National Highway margin in Sy.No.232/1 of Thiruvallom Village adjacent to the petitioner's residential building and for other appropriate writs. 3. The aforesaid writ petition was admitted on 23.6.2009. On 13.7.2009 this Court directed respondents 3 to 5 to file separate statements as to whether the toddy shop referred to in the writ petition is functioning in duly authorised premises. The case was thereafter posted to 22.7.2009. 4. In the meanwhile the petitioner wrote a letter addressed to the Registrar, High Court of Kerala, wherein it was stated that he did not actually intend to file the writ petition. The statement was that he had only entrusted a few signed blank papers and one or two vakalaths to the nearby owner of a bar hotel by name Archana Hotel for the purpose of filing complaints before the Excise Commissioner. On receipt of the letter and the same W.P.(C) No.17408 of 2009 -:3:- being posted before us on 22.7.2009, when we asked clarification from the petitioner suspecting his bona fides and as such the case came to be adjourned to 3.8.2009. In the meanwhile the respondents had filed their counter affidavits and the writ petitioner thereafter has filed a reply affidavit and also a 'not pressed memo'. 5. Since the bona fides of the writ petitioner was doubted, we had summoned the writ petitioner himself before us and made an enquiry. During the enquiry, as the writ petitioner went on giving contradictory statements, this Court directed the Registrar, Vigilance to conduct an enquiry and submit a report in this regard. 6. Accordingly the Registrar, Vigilance has conducted a detailed enquiry after issuing notices to all the concerned and submitted the report. On perusal of the report and the statement of the petitioner before this Court, it clearly indicates that the object W.P.(C) No.17408 of 2009 -:4:- of filing of the writ petition in the guise of public interest is something else. 7. The parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by the apex Court right from the case of S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Supp. SCC 87, till the latest pronouncement in the case of Kushum Lata v. Union of India and others, (2006) 6 SCC 180, and in fact, the Honourable Supreme Court has issued guidelines to the Courts to find out as to the real interest involved in the case. The Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid case directed that before going into the merits of the case, the Court is required to be satisfied with (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite and that the information should show gravity and seriousness involved. 8. The concept and doctrine of public interest litigation W.P.(C) No.17408 of 2009 -:5:- is something in which the public, the community at large has some pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. That does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as termed either publicity interest litigations or personal interest or paise wasool litigations. Taking into consideration the fact that large number of such cases which have interest other than the public interest involved are often filed, in the light of the enquiry report and various counter affidavits filed, we find that this is an attempt by the writ petitioner to put forth the cause of somebody else. We are informed at the Bar that nearly ten writ petitions of similar nature have been filed against the toddy shop in question though through different persons and as now admitted by the petitioner himself and prima facie appears to us, it is at the instance of the nearby bar hotel by name Archana Hotel just to harass or blackmail the toddy shop owner. 9. The conduct of the writ petitioner does not inspire W.P.(C) No.17408 of 2009 -:6:- confidence in us and as we find that it is filed with mala fide intention, without going into the merits of the case we dismiss the alleged public interest litigation as lacking bona fides with costs of Rupees two lakhs, out of which Rupee one lakh has to be paid to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee and the remaining Rupee one lakh to the Kerala Mediation Centre within three weeks. We make it clear that dismissal of this writ petition and imposing costs will not absolve the writ petitioner and other connected people from being subjected to the other actions permissible under law. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. Kurian Joseph, Judge vns