Dismissed

Flowers T.V. v. Mohammed @ Bava

Kerala HC9 Jun 2020WA/548/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the extension of a writ petition order staying a TV serial allegedly defaming witnesses in a murder case. The High Court held Article 226(3) does not mandate automatic vacation if the affected party was heard and ordered disposal without laches.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ appeal; request to the single judge to dispose of the writ petition or IA No.1 expeditiously.

Flowers T.V. Vs Mohammed @ Bava — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.548 OF 2020

¶8

[AGAINST INTERIM ORDERS DATED 22/01/2020 IN WP(C) NO.1703/2020(K)]

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 4, 5, & 6:

¶10

1 FLOWERS T.V., SURYANSH BROADCASTING PRIVATE LTD, OFFICE AT XI/ 234-B, NEAR GANDHI SQUARE MANEED, PIRAVOM P.O, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. R. SREEKANDAN NAIR.

¶11

2 R. SREEKANDAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, FLOWERS TV, SURYANSH BRAODCASTING PRIVATE LTD, OFFICE AT XI/234-B, NEAR GANDHI SQUARE MANEED, PIRAVOM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

3 GIREESH KONNI, AGED 42 YEARS, SERIAL DIRECTOR OF KOODATHAI, GLOWERS TV, SURYANSH BROADCASTING PRIVATE LTD, OFFICE AT XI/234 B NEAR GANDHI SQUARE MANEED, PIRAVOM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SMT.A.V.INDIRA

¶14

RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3, 7, 9 & 10:

¶15

1 MOHAMMED @ BAVA, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. ABBAS, ANTHANTH HOUSE, KOODATHAI, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT-678 001.

¶16

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

3 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶18

4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 001.

¶19

5 M.J ANTONY @ ANTONY PERUMBAVOOR, AGED 50 YEARS FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, AASHIRVAD CINEMAS, HOUSE NO. 59/1047, VALAKUZHY, KRISHNASWAMI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 035.

¶20

6 REMO ROY, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. LATE ROY THOMAS, PONNAMATTOM (H), KOODATHAI DESOM, THAMARASSERRY, KOZHIKODE DIST. - 673 513.

¶21

7 RENJI WILSON, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. LATE TOM TJHOMAS, CHAOKKATTU (H), PAISAKARI P.O, PAYYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-673 001.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN R2 TO R4 BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER R6 & R7 BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

¶23

SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-03-2020, THE COURT ON 09-06-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.548 of 2020

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2020

¶29

S.Manikumar, CJ.

¶30

Instant writ appeal is filed against the interim order dated 22.01.2020 in W.P.(C) No.28355 of 2015 and its consequent extension orders, by which the writ court granted the interim relief sought for by the writ petitioner, and issued an order prohibiting telecast of TV serial viz., “Koodathai : The Game of Death”, by respondents 4 to 6/appellants herein, for a period of two weeks.

¶31

Short facts leading to the appeal are that, respondent No.1/writ petitioner is the managing partner of a firm engaged in the manufacturing of soaps and toiletries, having its factories outside the State of Kerala. The office of the said company is at Koduvally, Kozhikode District. On 11.10.2019, Kodencherry Police Station has registered Crime Nos.332/2019, 333/2019, 334/2019 and 335 of 2019 against one Ms. Joliyamma Joseph and others for murdering four persons viz., Annamma, Tom Thomas, Mathew Manjadiyil and Alphine, residing at Ponnamattam, Koodathai (hereinafter referred as Koodathayi murder case). Writ petitioner and his mother are important witnesses in the said murder case. After completion of investigation, final report was laid in the murder case, the investigating officer concerned has questioned the writ petitioner and his mother and they have disclosed the true facts before the police.

¶32

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶33

¶34

It is further stated that M/s. Flowers TV, Suryansh Broadcasting Private Ltd., appellant No.1, is broadcasting a serial relating to the above Koodathayi serial murders from 13.01.2020 onwards under the title “Koodathayi:The Game of Death”. The advertisement and teaser of the abovesaid serial clearly indicate the persons involved and also mentioned the act relating to the incident and the witnesses. Though a disclaimer has been shown before starting the said television serial, stating that the story and the characters in the serial have no resemblance to any real persons, whether living or dead, etc., all the characters in the story resemble the real persons involved and the witnesses, in connection with the murder case. The persons residing in the locality can easily identify the resemblance of character in the serial. In such circumstances, on 17.01.2019, writ petitioner has sent a letter through email as well as by registered post to the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.2 therein, requesting to take necessary steps to ban the telecast of the above said serial by the appellants/respondents 4 to 6. However, no orders were passed. Being aggrieved, W.P.(C) No.1703 of 2020 was filed for the following reliefs:

¶35

i. “Issue a writ of mandamus, direction or any other appropriate writ or order, directing respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary action based on Exhibit-P10 letter and to ban the telecast of TV Serial, namely, “Koodathai, the Game of Death” by respondents 4 to 6.

¶36

ii. Issue an order prohibiting respondents 4 to 6 therein not to telecast the TV Serial, namely, “Koodathai, the Game of Death”,

¶37

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶38

¶39

till the culmination of trial in Crime Nos.332/2019, 333/2019, 334/2019, 335/2019 and 189/2011 of Kodancherry police station and Crime No.980/2019 of Thamarassery police station.

¶40

iii. Issue an order or direction to respondents 1 to 3 to completely prohibit the making of movies or TV serials or any publication regarding Koodathai serial murder case registered as Crime Nos.332/2019, 333/2019, 334/2019, 335/2019 and 189/2011 of Kodancherry police station and Crime No.980/2019 of Thamarassery police station, by respondents 7 and 8 and all other producers of Cinema and the Managing Directors of TV channels, till the culmination of trial of the above case.”

¶41

Before the writ court, Managing Director of Flowers T.V., Suryanash Broadcasting Private Ltd., Ernakulam, appellant No.1, on behalf of other appellants, has filed a counter affidavit, contending that the writ petition is a clear case of misuse and abuse of the constitutional public law remedies and the Prosecutor has failed to appraise this Court of the legal position, resulting in an ex parte interim order against the private respondents 4 to 6.

¶42

It is further contended that the writ petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself, since he has suppressed the material facts. It is contended that the 4^th respondent therein is a private TV channel and its constitution is in the nature of a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The 4^th respondent is operating with all the necessary licences issued by Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New

¶43

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶44

¶45

Delhi and other competent authorities. The 4^th respondent being a private entity has fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India for creating, exhibiting and broadcasting fictions. The contents of the TV serial in question telecasted by them have no connection with respect to the subject matter of the above crimes. The contents of the TV serial are inspired as a fiction and have no direct connection with accused and victims of the crimes.

¶46

It is pointed out that the writ petitioner has not stated in his pleadings, the locus standi to file the writ petition. He does not have any locus standi to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia. None of his fundamental or legal rights have been infringed, thus enabling him to approach this Court. It is also pertinent to note that respondents 1 to 3 are not the competent authorities for redressal of any grievances, insofar as the substance of telecast made by the 4^th respondent is concerned. Consequently, the 2^nd respondent does not have legal duty in considering the representation made by the writ petitioner under ExhibitP10, which is not a statutory representation. It is also pertinent to note that Exhibit-P10 does not contain any date. There is no document produced to indicate the acknowledgment of Exhibit-P10 by the 2^nd respondent. Going by

¶47

the pleadings in the writ petition, Exhibit-P10 is stated to be having forwarded as e-mail communication on 17-01-2020, on the previous working day before the writ petition was filed.

¶48

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶49

¶50

It is further contended that a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus without producing proof of delivery of representation to the authority and without giving even a single day for the authority to act upon the same, which is nothing, but an abuse of the process of court. In fact, respondents 9 and 10 have filed O.S. No. 9 of 2020 before the Munsiff's Court II, Thamarassery praying for a prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 and 3 and their men from making movies and serials, in connection with the Kodenchery police station Crime Nos.332/2019, 333/2019, 334/2019, 335/2019, 189/2011 and Thamarassery police station Crime No. 980/2019 or from airing, launching and broadcasting such movies and serials.

¶51

Dr. K. Arunkumar, Associate Executive Editor of 4^th respondent, on coming to know about the filing of O.S. No.9/2020 before the Munsiff's Court went to Thamarassery. In the said original suit, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Dr. K. Arunkumar met the petitioner herein at Thamarassery on 13.01.2020 in the lawyer's office of the plaintiff in the suit, exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement. The said Dr. Arunkumar explained to the lawyer that the serial telecasted by the 4^th respondent has no relation with Exhibits-P1 to P4 and other crimes. He understood that writ petitioner was instrumental in filling O.S. No.9/2020 before the Munsiff's Court-2, Thamarassery. Learned counsel of the plaintiff, after discussion with the writ petitioner, demanded an amount of Rs. 5 Crores to settle the civil suit. Respondents 9 and 10 are, in fact, name

¶52

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶53

¶54

lenders to the civil suit. In fact, the suit was prosecuted at the behest of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner further offered that if his demand for money was met he would give necessary information relating to Exhibits- P1 to P4 crimes and other crimes so as to enable making of 400 Episodes. The demand of the writ petitioner for settling the case was not accepted and his offer for providing information for making of the serial was also rejected, as the same were inappropriate. When he failed in getting favourable interim orders from the Munsiff's Court, Thamarassery, he has filed the present writ petition. The entire conversation with writ petitioner and Dr.Arunkumar on 13.01.2020 was recorded.

¶55

In fact, the contents of the serial do not have any direct or indirect connection with the incidents under investigation in Exhibits- P1 to P4 crimes as well as Crime No. 189/2011 of Kodenchery police station and Crime No. 980 of 2019 of Thamaraserry police station. ln each episode of the said serial, a disclaimer statement is exhibited in the beginning which states that,-Names, places and incidents depicted in this programme are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Channel will not have responsibility or liability for the views or criticism delineated in this programme, which cause any damage or dis-reputation to any individual, institution, caste, creed or establishment. It also appears that the writ petitioner has viewed the broadcasting of disclaimer statement before the serial, going by the admission made by him in the writ petition.

¶56

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶57

¶58

The allegation that all the characters in the story resemble the real person involved and the witnesses, in connection with KOODATHAYI serial murder case is denied. The petitioner, being a witness or otherwise in any criminal case, has no direct or indirect connection with any character in the serial. The serial does not depict the place of occurrence, crime scene, location or the accused, witnesses or victims in Exhibits P1 to P4 crimes and Crime No. 189/2011 of Kodenchery police station and Crime No. 980 of 2019 of Thamarasery police station. The investigating officer or the investigation agencies which investigated the above crime has no resemblance with the characters acting as investigation officers in the serial. The only resemblance that can possibly be drawn is that in the serial, serial murders are investigated and the name of the serial is Koodathayi. Koodathayi is the name of a place in Kozhikode. The character in the said serial named Basheer has no resemblance with petitioner .going by the admission in the writ petition. The petitioner is a rich business man while the above character Basheer is a poor man.

¶59

It is further contended that public law remedy cannot be invoked if the contents of the serial adversely affect the reputation of the writ petitioner and his family. He may have to approach the competent civil court to redress his grievances. The allegation that the contents of the serial are intentionally incorporated so as to save the culprit is denied. If the writ petitioner has such a complaint against any one, he ought to have invoked

¶60

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶61

¶62

criminal law remedy against such law against such intentional acts. Further, the other allegations are also denied being incorrect.

¶63

At the stage of admission, writ court by the impugned order granted the relief sought for by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein. Thereafter, by subsequent orders (Annexures-A2, A3, A5 & A6), the interim relief originally granted on 22.01.2020 was extended time-to-time. Appellants, who are respondents 4 to 6 before the writ court, have contended that extension of stay orders were issued pursuant to the original interim order dated 22.01.2020, which automatically stood vacated on 7.2.2020, in view of the mandate of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, consequent upon non-passing of orders in I.A. No.1 of 2020 filed by the appellants on 24.01.2020. According to the appellants, said I.A is not disposed of till date. Being aggrieved, instant appeal is filed on the following grounds:

¶64

“A) Annexure-A1 interim order dated 22.01.2020 stood vacated by operation of law. It is automatically vacated on 7.2.2020 in view of the fact that I.A. No.1/2020 praying to vacate the said order was filed on 24.01.2020 and on completion of 14 days ie. on 7.2.2020, it stands vacated by the operation of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India due to non-passing of any order on the said I.A.

¶65

B) All the impugned extension orders of Annexure-A1 interim orders are illegal and are to be declared as nullity.

¶66

C. The continuance of the interim order is causing huge loss to the appellants, adversely affecting their business interest.”

¶67

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶68

¶69

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶70

Materials on record disclose that on 17.01.2019, writ petitioner has sent a letter (Exhibit-P10) through e-mail as well as by registered post to the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram, requesting him to take necessary steps to ban the telecast of the above TV serial by the appellants. The said letter is reproduced.

¶71

“From,

¶72

Muhammed @ Bava, aged 37 years, S/o. Abbas, Anthanth House, Koodathayi, Kozhikode District.

¶73

To,

¶74

The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶75

Sir,

¶76

I am residing with my family in the above mentioned address. My mother and myself are prime witnesses in Koodathayi murder case, which were registered as Crime Nos.332/2019, 333/2019, 334/2019, 335/2019, 189/2011 and 980/2019, in Kodencherry Police Station and Thamarasserry Police Station. It is known that the Police had submitted Final Report only in one case and investigation is still in progress in all other cases. The concerned Investigating Officer in the above cases questioned me and my mother and I have disclosed true facts before the Police regarding the above incident.

¶77

Now, the Flowers TV Channel is broadcasting a serial relating to the above Koodathayi serial murders from 13.01.2020 onwards under the title ‘Koodathayi: The Game of

¶78

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶79

¶80

Death'. The advertisement and teaser of the above said TV serial clearly indicate the persons involved in the above case and also mentioned the act relating to the incident. Now, the Flowers TV channel is regularly broadcasting the said serial under the banner of ’Flowers Movies international’. The Director of the said TV serial is Mr. Girish Konni. The Managing Director of the Flowers TV is Mr. R. Sreekandan Nair. Now, the contents of the serial adversely effects the reputation of myself and my family and the same is intentionally incorporated so as to save the culprits. Moreover, the dialogue and the visuals of the said TV serial will affect the morale of the witnesses and ultimately it will adversely affect the investigation and trial of the above case. So, the broadcasting of the above said serial by Flowers TV is detrimental to the prosecution and therefore the same is to be banned forthwith.

¶81

Moreover, some film producers and directors are also under the preparation to make films based on the above serial murders with Mohanlal and Mammootty in the lead role. One actor Dini Daniel posted in the facebook that the work on their movie titled ‘Koodathayi’ had already begun. So, all the above said acts will also adversely affect the investigation and trial of the above cases. Moreover, before starting a TV serial or Cinema in connection with the above Koodathayi murder case, the concerned parties must seek permission from the Court where the matter is pending consideration.

¶82

It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to ensure that the witness is to be protected at any time during the course of investigation and trial, restricting the media to disclose the facts relating to the above case and the role of the witnesses, which tends to lower the reputation of witnesses and infringes upon their privacy. The media should be cautious not to

¶83

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶84

¶85

sensationalize the incident and the report and broadcasting of such cases should be done sensitively, keeping the best interest of the victims and the witnesses. Sensationalizing such cases may garner Television Rating Points, but does no credit to the credibility of the media. So, broadcasting or publishing of any items relating to Koodathayi murder case by the press, electronic and social media is to be banned for the best interest of justice. The publishing of the facts and role of the witnesses in the above case will amount to subjudice.

¶86

Therefore, it is requested that your good self may take appropriate action forthwith to stop the broadcasting of serial under the title ‘Koodathayi: The Game of Death’, by the Flowers TV and also issue order not to telecast or make movies regarding the above incident by the producers of Cinema and the Managing Directors of TV channels, till the culmination of trial of the above cases.

¶87

Yours Truly,

¶88

Muhammed”

¶89

Annexure-A1 order dated 22.01.2020 is reproduced:

¶90

“O R D E R

¶91

Public Prosecutor appears for respondents 1 to 3

¶92

Adv. C. Unnikrishnan, appears for R4.

¶93

Issue notice to respondents 5 to 8 by special messenger and 9 & 10 by speed post.

¶94

There shall be an interim order as prayed for, for a period of two weeks.

¶95

Post on 28.01.2020, counter if any, shall be filed in the meantime.”

¶96

Annexure-A2 order dated 28.01.2020 is reproduced:

W.A.No.548 of 2020

“O R D E R

Repeat notice to respondent no.8 in correct address.

¶101

Sri.M.R.Rajendran Nair, Senior Counsel, appears for R4 to R6. Adv. Philip T.Varghese, appears for R9 and R10. R7 appears through counsel. Respondents 4 to 6 appeared and filed counter as well as I.A. No.1/2020 to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court.

¶102

Heard the learned counsel appearing for R2 to R6 as also the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents 7, 9 and 10. I find that a detailed hearing is required and, therefore, the interim order shall continue till next week, when the matter will be posted for detailed hearing.

¶103

Post for hearing on 03.02.2020 (Monday)”

¶104

Thereafter by Annexures-A4 and A5 orders, the interim order already granted was extended by three weeks and thereafter by one month.

¶105

Materials on record disclose that a counter affidavit has been filed by the contesting respondents in the writ petition and even thereafter, the interim order has been extended by the writ court. The initial order of stay was granted on 22.01.2020, apparently without hearing the aggrieved persons i.e., respondents 4 to 6. However, on a perusal of the proceedings dated 28.01.2020, what we could gather is that a learned Senior Counsel appeared for and on behalf of respondents 4 to 6 and filed a counter affidavit as well as I.A. No.1 of 2020 to vacate the interim stay granted by the court. It is further recorded that learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 6 were heard as also learned counsel appearing for the

¶106

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶107

¶108

petitioner, respondents, 7, 9 and 10, and it was further recorded that a detailed hearing is required. Therefore, the interim order was ordered to continue till next week when the matter was to be posted for a detailed hearing. Therefore, it is clear and evident that the affected respondents were heard before extending the interim order on 28.01.2020.

¶109

That apart, on 3.2.2020, the interim order was extended for a further period of two weeks and on 6.2.2020, yet another order has been passed and the respondents 4, 5 and 6 were directed to produce the script of the serial, as far as it is available, after providing a copy of the same to the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to file a report as to whether the script is in any way identical to the real issue. The case was thereafter posted to 17.02.2020, on which day also, the interim order was extended and from the order, it is evident that the order was extended after hearing the respective counsel. Again the matter was heard on 4.3.2020 and the order was extended by a period of one month. Hence, what we intend to state is that the interim order originally granted by the learned single Judge on 22.01.2020 was extended only after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the affected parties.

¶110

The contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent that by virtue of the provisions contained in Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, orders stood vacated cannot be said to be correct. Article 226(3) of the Constitution reads thus:

¶111

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶112

¶113

“ 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs,-

¶114

(1) xx xxxx xxx

¶115

(2) xx xxxx xxx

¶116

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without-

¶117

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and

¶118

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated.”

¶119

On an analysis of clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is clear and evident that the question of automatic vacation of the interim order comes into play only if a copy of the petition and the documents in support of the plea for such interim order were not furnished

¶120

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶121

¶122

to the affected person and without affording an opportunity of being heard to such person. If under such a situation, the affected person makes an application to the High Court for vacation of such order or furnishes a copy of such application to the party, in whose favour the said order has been made, or the learned counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, apart from the other circumstances pointed out above.

¶123

It is true that the application was not disposed of in its absolute terms, but it is evident from the orders passed that the order was being extended after hearing the parties for the reasons and circumstances made thereunder. Looking at that angle, it cannot be said that the learned single Judge was not conscious of the provisions contained under clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The adjournments had to be made for facilitating proper hearing of the application, taking in account various documents and other materials required for deciding the case projected by the petitioner and the respondents in the writ petition. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any laches or negligence on the part of the petitioner to protract the proceedings and it cannot be viewed that the learned single Judge was adjourning the matter without hearing the parties. Record of proceedings show that the writ petition is ripe for hearing and in that view of the matter, at this distance of time, it is only appropriate that the writ

¶124

W.A.No.548 of 2020

¶125

¶126

petition can be disposed of by requesting the learned single Judge to hear

¶127

and finalise the proceedings on an early basis.

¶128

In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed. Learned single Judge is requested to consider and dispose of I.A. No.1 of 2020 or the writ petition itself, expeditiously.

¶129

Sd/-

¶130

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶131

Sd/SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

Krj

W.A.No.548 of 2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶137

ANNEXURE A1	CERTIFIED COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 22-01-2020 IN W.P (C) NO. 1703/2020.
ANNEXURE A2	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-01-2020 IN W.P(C) NO. 1703/2020.
ANNEXURE	CERTIFIED COPY OF EXTENSION ORDER DATED 03-02-2020 IN W.P(C) NO. 1703/2020.
ANNEXURE A4	CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 06-02-2020 IN W.P(C) NO. 1703/2020.
ANNEXURE A5	CERTIFIED COPY OF EXTENSION ORDER DATED 17-0-22020 IN W.P(C) NO. 1703/2020.
ANNEXURE A6	CERTIFIED COPY OF EXTENSION ORDER DATED 04-03-2020 IN W.P(C) NO. 1703/2020.

¶138

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-NIL

¶139

//TRUE COPY//

¶140

P.A. TO CJ

Flowers T.V. v. Mohammed @ Bava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Flowers T.V. v. Mohammed @ Bava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kabeer C Alias Aneera Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Ehvees, Vs the District Collector

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

All Kerala River Protection Council Vs State of Kerala

The State Bank of Travancore Vs Jose Paul

Cry for Life Society Vs Union of India