IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7938 of 2009(S) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- DR.V.PREMAN, S/O.ANANTHAN STAR APARTMENTS, P.O.TALAP, KANNUR-2. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. KANNUR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KANNUR-2 2. SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECREARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT AND MEMBER SECRETARY, KERALA COSTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, SASTHRABHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SKYLINE BUILDERS PAYAMBALAM, KANNUR 670001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.K. CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC. R3 & R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER, SMT.K.MEERA R5 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER FOR THIRD PARTY(B/O) SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA FOR THIRD PARTY(B/O) SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH FOR THIRD PARTY(B/O) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 7938 OF 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.04.05 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 03.08.07 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF A PLAINT IN OS NO.188/08 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.09 IN OS NO.188 OF 2008. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ON COASTAL REGULATION ZONE ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DATED 19.02.91. EXT.P6 : TRUE PHOTOGRAPH TO SHOW THAT THE IMPUGNED CONSTRUCTION IS CLOSE TO THE SEA. EXT.P7 : TRUE PHOTOGRAPH TO SHOW THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IS MADE IN THE SEAWARD SIDE OF THE OLD BUILDING AND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IS GOING ON STILL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(1) : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT IN OS NO.188/2008. EXT.R5(2) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R5(3) : TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 7938 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. This alleged Public Interest Litigation(PIL) is filed seeking writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authority to demolish the alleged illegal construction of a residential flat in Ward No.3, Block No.2, TS No.78 in Payyambalam area of Kannur Municipality, being constructed by respondent No.5 herein. 2. After filing of the writ petition, notice was ordered to the 5th respondent and in pursuance of the same he entered appearance through the counsel and submitted that the bona fides of the petitioner himself is in doubt. In as much as in the cause title of the writ petition he has given vague description of his residential address and in fact it is brought to our notice that the petitioner himself has filed a suit, OS No.188 of 2008, in March 2008, much earlier of filing of this writ petition seeking mandatory injunction of the same nature WP(C) No.7938 of 2009 -:2:- which is now sought from this Court in the present PIL. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent produced the written statement filed by the 5th respondent as long back in July 2008 and in paragraph 4 of the written statement the residential address and the bona fides of the writ petitioner himself were doubted. 3. On the basis of this prima facie doubt created as to the petitioner's bona fides, we directed the writ petitioner to be present before this Court and on enquiry with him we found that either he is suppressing some facts or not coming out with clean hands. Accordingly, we directed him to file his affidavit along with proof of his residence. He has filed a bio-data along with identity details in which he has stated as to the residence as follows: “Regular Government Service: PHC - Pamburuthy, Kannur District 14.02.03 to9.02.05 stayed in a rented building near Village Office, Narath. Government Hospital Mattool, February 2005 onwards and continues-stayed in a rented building at Mattool South Up to April 2007. WP(C) No.7938 of 2009 -:3:- Residence: Thereafter in Star Apartments, Talap P.O., Kannur-2 (May 2007 to April 2008- for completion of the house at the housing colony). Then shifted to House No.X, Krishna Menon Colony, Pallikkunnu P.O., from May 2008 now continues.” 4. It is his contention that after staying for some time in rented house at Mattool South, from May 2007 to April 2008, he started living in Star Apartments, Talap P.O., Kannur and thereafter shifted to House No.X, Krishna Menon Colony, Pallikkunnu P.O., from May 2008. Again as this was disputed by the 5th respondent and as it was not clear as to whether his recent residence belongs to him or not. For this, the petitioner was directed to file a statement furnishing the details of the name of the road on which the residence occupied by him earlier, namely, Star Apartment is situated. In the statement filed by the petitioner it is stated that the name of the road is “Olacherikavu Road” and the 'Star Apartment' is the name given by him for his then residence which is the up stair portion of a residential building on the said road owned by a friend of the petitioner, Sri.M.Kishore Kumar. As again when confronted with WP(C) No.7938 of 2009 -:4:- the description given by the petitioner about Sri.Kishore Kumar, it was submitted that the said Kishore Kumar is a practising advocate of Kannur Bar. As such, we directed notice to the said Kishore Kumar, Advocate, who has filed his affidavit stating that the petitioner had never stayed with him either permanently or temporarily. To this the petitioner explained that he was staying in the second floor of the house occupied and owned by Sri.Kishore Kumar, Advocate, and probably he was not aware of the same. This again is found to be false as the said Kishore Kumar has specifically stated on oath that “my house is a two storied building and access to up stair portion is through the ground floor. There is no access to the up stair portion from outside. Therefore, there is no question of allowing any strangers to reside in the up stair portion of my house.” 5. As such we find that the story so far given by the petitioner about his residence is not only unbelieved, it appears he is changing colours like a chameleon. Now after confronting him with this material, it is alleged that as the said Kishore WP(C) No.7938 of 2009 -:5:- Kumar himself is in collusion with other builders, as he is also constructing an apartment, he is in league with other builders like 5th respondent. Thus, there is clear indication that the petitioner is not coming with any truth and far from it, he is even not clear as to his place of residence and whatever the address he has given so far are found to be false and untrue. In this view of the matter as held by the apex court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2005) 1 SCC 590], it is clear that the petitioner has approached this Court under the guise of PIL in spite of the suit filed by him being dismissed and thereafter no appeal being filed. It is in our view, a clear attempt of mala fides on the part of the petitioner. It is also appears from the contentions of the 5th respondent in the suit itself that at the time of the suit filed, the 5th respondent had obtained necessary permission from the authority and completed the construction also. This, clearly and prima facie, establishes that the petitioner lacks bona fides as observed by the apex court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware's case(supra), a person acting WP(C) No.7938 of 2009 -:6:- bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions. A writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. In the light of these observations and facts narrated by us, in our view, it appears that the petitioner is a busy body and his petition deserves to be thrown out by rejecting it at the threshold with exemplary costs. Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation WP(C) No.7938 of 2009 -:7:- is dismissed with cost of Rs.1 lakh to be paid within four weeks from today. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb