IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.P.(C).No.36575 of 2008(S) --------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS:- ---------------------- 1. KUNNAKKOTTUMALA BHAGAVATHI MUTHAPPAN TEMPLE, CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL.P.O., PIN - 683 550, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, K.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.PASU, AGED 61 YEARS, OKKAL.P.O., CHELAMATTOM., PIN - 683 550, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.K.RAJAN, S/O.KRISHNAN KOTTAPPADY HOUSE, OKKAL.P.O., CHELAMATTOM., PIN - 683 550, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.ANANDAN. RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, OKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH , OKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 560. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. W.P.(C).NO.36575 OF 2008 - 2 - 4. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, OKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. SUDHEER C.M., S/O.MUSTAFA, CHIRAPPULLI HOUSE, RAYONPURAM P.O., CHELANATTAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R2, R4, R5 & R6 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36575 of 2008-S --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th December, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer,J. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be the President of Kunnakkattumala Bhagavathi Muthappan Temple at Okkal and petitioner No.2 is its former President. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that the proposed establishment of a plastic factory in the locality concerned, where the temple is situated, will cause grave environmental problems and harm to the local residents. (2) The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondents 2 to 5 to dispose of Exhibits P1 to P7 representations submitted by the petitioners, before a decision is taken in the matter pursuant to Exhibit P9 notice issued by the local Grama Panchayat. (3) Before we consider the question of tenability of the above prayer, it is pertinent to note that petitioner No.2 in this writ petition was a party in W.P.(C).No.32590 of 2008, filed by respondent No.7 herein, who proposes to set up the above factory. In that writ petition, respondent No.7 herein had prayed for a direction to the Panchayat to consider his application WP(C).36575/2008-S - 2 - for setting up the factory without any delay. This Court had disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 5.11.2008, directing the Panchayat to take a decision on the application submitted by respondent No.7, since, according to the learned Judge, there was no justification on the part of the Panchayat to refuse to take a decision. The concluding paragraph in the above judgment is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience: “When an application is submitted, the Panchayat has a duty to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereof in accordance with law. The fact that some people of the locality have objected to the same, is no reason to refuse to pass orders on the application. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent among the respondents to pass final orders on Ext.P5 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent”. (4) It can be seen from the above judgment that petitioner No.2 herein, who was respondent No.3 in that writ petition, was also directed to be heard by the Panchayat before considering the application filed by respondent No.7. Thus, obviously, petitioner No.2 had been afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter which, necessarily, means that he could have raised whatever objections he may have as against WP(C).36575/2008-S - 3 - the establishment of the factory in question. (5) It is on record that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the Panchayat has issued Exhibit P9 notice, inviting all the parties for a hearing scheduled to be held on December 10, 2008. It is at this juncture that the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. (6) The second prayer in the present writ petition is to stay the entire proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P9 notice till the disposal of the writ petition, which means that petitioner No.2, who was a party to Exhibit P8 judgment, wants the Panchayat not only to be interdicted from taking a decision in the light of the direction issued by this Court in Exhibit P8 judgment, but also to ignore the said direction. In our view, the attempt of at least petitioner No.2 is nothing but a clever design to interfere with the administration of justice. We cannot countenance such a situation. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that this so-called “public interest litigation” is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court, which cannot be encouraged at all. (7) We refrain from making any further observation, since the Panchayat is bound to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law and on the merits of the application, if any, submitted by respondent No.7 in the light of the observations made by this Court in Exhibit P8 judgment. WP(C).36575/2008-S - 4 - (8) Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to dismiss the writ petition, holding it as a mischievous and frivolous petition. We do so. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge