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 FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31402 of 2009(S) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. H.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.HAMEED RAWTHER RESIDING AT EEPTIMUTIL HOUSE, KALTHURITTY.P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT PRESIDENT ARYANKVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH. 2. MAMBAZHATHARA SALIM, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEENKUNJU, RESIDING WAHD BUILDING, EDAPALAYAM.P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT, CHAIRMAN, PANAHCAVATH STANDING COMMITEE AND CHAIANR OF ACTION COUNCIL. 3. THOMAS MICHAEL, AGED 41, S/O.MICHAEL THEKKINKATTIL HOUSE, ARYANKKAVU.P.O., PANCHAYATH MEMBER, ACTION COUNCIL CONVENER. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST NEW DELHI. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVNUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE FOREST SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE, KERALA STATE SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 31402 of 2009(S) 5. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM. 8. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER THENMALA. 9. GOVERNMENT TIMBER DEPOT OFFICER, THENMALA. 10. THE DITRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL BY ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 31402 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. This Public Interest Litigation is filed by the President, Aryankavu Grama Panchayat and two others, the Chairman and Convener of the Panchayat Standing committee and Action Council, seeking the following reliefs: “i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext.P1 and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari. ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to ensure that no forest land is converted to non forest activities except after the approval of the Central Government, Ministry of Environment and Forest. iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to prosecute those Kerala State officials for the violations of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.” 2. On perusal of the entire records, especially Ext.P8 representation/notice dated 26.10.09 signed by the petitioners, it is seen that the main grievance of the petitioners was against the decision of the Government to WP(C) No.31402 of 2009 -:2:- shift Sales Tax, Excise Tax and Motor Vehicle Check Posts from Aryankavu to Thenmala. The highlighting of protest against this shifting is on the ground that it will cause trouble to most of the people and especially causing loss of livelihood of some of the persons. It is the inaction on the part of the Government to consider Ext.P8, the present Public Interest Litigation is filed. 3. We could have understood if the prayers were confined to this particular aspect. But, under the guise of invoking Public Interest Litigation, many other non-connected contentions have been raised, reliefs are sought in the writ petition and arguments by learned counsel for the petitioners are totally different. Such invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court on the unconcerned and unconnected matters for which the petitioners have not made any efforts to bring to the notice of the concerned authority, in our view, the public interest litigation is misconceived and inappropriate. 4. The further arguments are based on the statement filed by the Collector in respect of the check post and only that aspect need be considered. The main contention of the petitioners is WP(C) No.31402 of 2009 -:3:- that it is a forest land and as such the same cannot be and should not be used for check post. 5. In the statement filed by the Collector it is asserted that as per the revenue records and settlement registers of 1903 AD onwards, this land is mentioned as revenue puramboke and the same is not a forest land. Further it is also contended that the decision of the Government to establish an integrated check post, and as it is a policy decision, cannot be said to be against the public interest on the face of the materials available. As such, we find that the Writ Petition is misconceived and the same is rejected. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb/vku.