IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6296 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ADVOCATE S.RAJEEV, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. SHEKARAN, YAMUNA MANDIR, POOVATHOOR.P.O., NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695561. 2. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. CHAKRAPANI, PREETHALAYAM, PARIYARAM, VENKODE.P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695028. BY ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. HOME DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, PERURKADA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005. 4. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD.P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & Antony Dominic, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6296 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the 1st respondent to produce all records and proceedings in pursuant to Exhibit P2. ii) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, and thereby quash and set aside Exhibit P2. iii) To grant such other reliefs and costs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper to grant in the nature and circumstances of this case. 2. Ext.P2 is an order of the Government of of Kerala. The relevant portion of the translated copy of Ext.P2 reads as follows: “The request of Shri Mancode Radhakrishnan M.L.A. regarding, ref (1) to grant of transfer of 18 cent of land situated at Nedumangad Village for constructing permanent Police Station WP(C) No.6296 of 2011 - 2 - working at Rented building since Property was handed over for constructing revenue tower of Nedumangad Thaluk. 1. With regarding ref. (2) the District Collector had reported that the local residents objected the transferring of Nedumangad Village office working from the present building to the newly constructed revenue tower at the 4th floor without adequate space. The District Collector issued strict order to the concerned revenue Officer not to initiate any assignment proceedings regarding transfer of Village Office compound as per circular order in ref. (3). 2. The Government Examined the said matter in detail, orders are passed transferring possession of 7.2 ares belonging to revenue department comprised in resurvey 609/10 in block No.36 together with old building of Nedumangad Village, Nedumangad Thaluk of Thiruvananthapuram District between the two service department as per stipulations regarding the inter transfer and other stipulations set out hereunder. 1. The Police Department shall utilize the land for the particular purpose alone. 2. The property shall not sublease or can be transferred 3. The property should be protected from trespassing 4. District Collector Thiruvananthapuram shall initiate further proceedings accordingly.” WP(C) No.6296 of 2011 - 3 - 3. It can be seen from the above order that an extent of 7.2 ares of land belonging to the Revenue Department along with an old building is transferred in favour of the Police Department for the purpose specified therein i.e. the construction of a permanent police station. The said proceeding is challenged on the ground that the construction of such a building would offend the religious feelings of the people. The relevant portion of the pleading is at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the writ petition which reads as follows: “4. A rare idol of Lord Siva and Goddess Parvathi is worshipped in the very ancient Mahadeva temple found among in the State of Kerala situated on the east of the village office. The idol is incarnation of half Siva and half Parvathi, facing the west direction is also a rare installation of such idol. The importance of such installation of an idol is that no other building having more height than the idol installed in the temple should be constructed in front of the temple. The village office building is having less height than the idol installed in the temple. No other buildings are also there in front of the temple having more height than the idol installed therein the temple. 5. The Nedumangad has its own regional festival named “AMMAN KODA DEISEYA MAHOLSAVAM” and that particular day is declared as public holiday. On the said festival day Possession from Three Temples “Melamcode WP(C) No.6296 of 2011 - 4 - Devi Temple”, “Mutharamman Temple” and “Muthumarianamman Temple”, reach at the Mahadeva temple to perform and offer rituals etc., constructing a multistoried building will affect the poojas and also the devotee's religious feelings.” 4. When called upon to explain as to how such a construction would offend the religious sentiments of the people, a vague statement is made which is not supported by anything in the pleading that such a construction is not permitted under the 'Tantric Rules' applicable to the temple. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Home Minister of the State of Kerala is proposing to lay foundation stone for the police station with a view to gain a political advantage from such an activity in the ensuing elections. 5. We make it clear that first of all, there is no specific pleading to this effect in the writ petition. Secondly, assuming for the sake of argument that such a pleading is neither necessary nor such a pleading exists on record, we do not see any principle in law which prohibits such an activity. In a democratic system endearing oneself to the voters through the means which are not legally prohibited is a part of the political activity. 6. In substance, we are of the opinion that the present writ petition though styled as a public interest litigation is essentially a WP(C) No.6296 of 2011 - 5 - political interest litigation. The petitioner obviously wants to settle political issues through the means of public interest litigation. It is well settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court that this Court should not be permitted to be used as a tool for such a process. We do not see any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice Antony Dominic, Judge vns