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 MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10769 of 2011(S) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.P.SHAHUL HAMEED, BISMI MANZIL, POOZHANADU P.O., OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.MAJIDA.S SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. B.SANTHOSH KUMAR, VADAKKEVILA VEEDU, PALAIKONAM, ARYANADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 542. R1 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 10769 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. This Writ Petition, styled as a 'public interest litigation', has been placed for consideration before the Bench by the Registry doubting the maintainability, in view of the earlier proceedings on the same set of facts and figures. 2. Going by the second paragraph of the 'synopsis', it is seen that the earlier Writ Petition (W.P(C).No.15831 of 2006) was filed by the petitioner, with regard to the allocation of the Authorised Wholesale Depot having No.T18 of Nanniyodu Grama Panchayath in Nedumangad Taluk, Trivandrum. The Writ Petition was allowed by this Court, against which, Writ Appeal was filed before the Division Bench. After considering the matter, the Division Bench passed the final verdict on 23.1.2007, against the appointment of the second respondent as licensee of the depot. The parties concerned have challenged the orders passed in consequence thereof in W.P.(C).No. 14005 and WP(C).No. 13983 of 2007 which are pending consideration before this Court. In the meanwhile, according to the petitioner, some irregularities and illegalities were committed by the second respondent WP(C).10769/11 2 herein, who has been granted the licence for operation of the Wholesale Depot as per Exhibit P7 order passed by the Government on 1.11.2010. Placing reliance on the said order, the petitioner is now before this Court allegedly in 'public interest', stating that the matter requires to be interfered by this Court, so as to stall the operation of the Wholesale Depot by the second respondent. 3. On the question whether the petitioner had approached this Court earlier, in respect of personal grievance/cause of action, by filing W.P.(C).No.15831 of 2006 as narrated in the second paragraph of the 'synopsis', the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the version given in the said paragraph is only a 'mistake' and that the earlier Writ Petition was filed by the daughter of the petitioner. Fact remains that there is a personal dispute/grievance in the allotment of the Wholesale Depot to the second respondent, when the petitioner admits that his daughter had approached this Court earlier, which led to issuance of licence in favour of the second respondent and the same is under challenge in W.P(C).Nos.14005 and 13938 of 2007 by the other aggrieved parties, though the daughter of the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said proceedings. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner has not approached this Court with any genuine public interest but for the personal interest sought to be agitated by the daughter of the WP(C).10769/11 3 petitioner in the earlier round of litigation. This Writ Petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court, which has to be dealt with in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others (2010 (3) SCC 402). Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with a cost of `25,000/-. We make it clear that we have not mentioned anything with regard to the merits of Exhibit P7 order. The Registry is directed to number the case so as to identify the matter. Sd/- J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs /true copy/ PS TO JUDGE