A public interest petition sought to prevent a proposed private fish market near an accident-prone national highway stretch. The court held that the petition, filed on newspaper reports and hearsay without prior enquiry, did not satisfy PIL requirements and dismissed it with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 15780 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
C.K.VARGHESE AGED 58 YEARS S/O.KOCHUVAREETHU, CHAKIYATH(H), CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682027. BY ADVS. P.S.ANISHAD P.R.JAYASANKAR LIMNA BHASKARAN K. R. ARUN KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SECRETARY CHERANALLOOR PANCHAYATH CHERANELLOOR, SOUTH CHITTOOR, KOCHI-682027.
7 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA HAVING OFFICE AT VII/511 B, NEITHELI-MAVELIPURAM ROAD,MAVELIPURAM,KAKKANAD,KERALA-682030,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. SRI. T.K.AJITH KUMAR [VALATH]FOR R1, SRI. K.P.HARISH, SR GP FOR R2, R4 AND R5, SRI. T.NAVEEN FOR R3, SRI. P VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG FOR R6, DR. K.P.SATHEESAN(SR) FOR R7
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -2-
J U D G M E N T
S. Manikumar, C. J.
Claiming himself to be a public spirited person, social worker and altruistic individual, writ petitioner, resident of Chakiyath (H), Cheranelloor, Ernakulam, has filed the instant writ petition, for the following reliefs:-
“i) Direct the 6th respondent to conduct an enquiry as to the feasibility and permissibility of a Private fish Market near the National Highway in an area specified between varappuzha bridge to ICT Signal named as Black spot in its records and take appropriate action in this regard as against the proposed installation of a private market in the said premises in the interests of justice;
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to urgently take steps to stop the commencement of private fish market near the National Highway in an area specified between varappuzha bridge to ICT Signal named as Black spot in the interests of justice;
iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent not to commence the proposed private fish
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -3-
market near the National Highway in an area specified between varappuzha bridge to ICT Signal named as Black spot in the interests of justice.”
According to the petitioner, he is a frequent traveller through ICT NH, Varappuzha and a nearby resident. The area specified between Varappuzha bridge to ICT Signal has been identified as “black spot” by MoRTH (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) and the ranking is 95 among black spots.
Petitioner has contended that the Secretary, Cheranelloor Panchayat, Cheranelloor, South Chittor, Kochi, the 1st respondent, has given sanction to open a private fish market in a plot (container yard), which is only 200 m nearby Varappuzha bridge. The said container yard belongs to one Mr. Paulson Poulose. The entry and exit of this above mentioned proposed fish market is directly to the road, which is mentioned as black spot by MORTH and 15 accidents been reported in a span of 3 years and several travellers spared their life in these accidents.
Petitioner has also contended that the said action is illegal and the Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, the
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -4-
5th respondent, has to conduct an enquiry, as to the feasibility and permissibility of a private fish market, which is adjacent to the National Highway and having only an entrance from the National Highway. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, the 6th respondent, has issued Ext. P13 office memorandum dated 28.10.2015, whereby protocol for identification and rectification for road accident black spots on national highways has been issued. Therefore, the National Highways Authority of India, the 7th respondent, also has some role in the issue raised herein.
Petitioner has further contended that the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, the 6th respondent, has issued Ext. P14 revised guidelines dated 26.06.2020, for grant of permission for construction of access to fuel stations, way side amenities, connecting properties, other roads, rest area complexes and such other facilities. Going by the said revised guidelines, the concerned agency who initiates projects has to make provision for the same at its own cost. Here, in the instant case, the 1st respondent is establishing a private fish market adjacent to national highway and therefore the 1st respondent is obliged to make provision for a connectivity to the said highway. Since the same is absent in the
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -5-
instant case, the commencement of the proposed fish market requires to be stalled. Hence, the instant writ petition is filed.
In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v.
C.K.Rajan & Others [(2003) 7 SCC 546], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
“(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -6-
any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court.
The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional promises. [See S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 494 , Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 161 and Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305)]
(ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of the public vis-a-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. [See Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978) 4 SCC 104 and Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81).
(iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. In Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani (AIR 1979 SCC 468), it was held:
"2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -7-
not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like minigrievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.” (See also Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. and Anr. v. B.D. Agarwal and Ors. (2003) 5 SCALE 138).
(iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. [See Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344, S.P. Gupta (supra), People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra), Dr. D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 378 and BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others [(2002) 2 SCC 333 ].
(v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition.
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -8-
(vi) Although procedural laws apply to PIL cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depends on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. [See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. , 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 and Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri and others (1986) 1 SCC 100].
(vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. (See Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India and Others 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251).
(viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (See Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and Others (1987) 1 SCC 227).
(ix) The Court in special situations may appoint a Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such Committee. (See Bandhua Mukti Morchai, Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar (1989) Suppl 1 SCC 644 and A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718). In Sachidanand Panday and Another v. State of West Bengal
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -9-
and others [(1987) 2 SCC 295], this Court held,-
“61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action on when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extent its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the need, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such is required. But this does mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants."
This Court, in an unreported judgment dated 30.06.2020 in
B. Radhakrishna Menon v. State of Kerala and Ors. [W.P.(C)
No.12109 of 2020], at paragraph 45, held thus:
“45. Placing reliance on the above decisions, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a public interest writ petition which lacks bona fides, lack of particulars satisfying the requirements of a PIL, deserves to be dismissed with costs. Having regard to decisions considered in Mythri Residents Association v. Secretary, Tripunithura Municipality and Others, [2019 KHC 832] , it has been summarised by the journal thus:
“(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -10-
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -11-
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.
(9) The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process.
(10) Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened by arrears.
(11) Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes.
(12) This Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved.
(13) Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice.
(14) It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda.
(15) This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation.
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -12-
(16) There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention.
(17) Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process.
(18) This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law.
(19) This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services.
(20) Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office.
(21) Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements.
(22) Courts protect the rule of law.
(23) There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space.”
the writ petitioner was posed to the question as to whether the
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -13-
petitioner had made any enquiries with the Secretary, Cheranellor Panchayat, Cheranelloor, South Chittor, Kochi, the 1st respondent, or any other competent authority, as to whether there is any proposal to start a private fish market near the National Highway, or for the matter any permission has been granted to do so, Mr. K. R. Arun Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner heard from reliable sources and after taking note of a report in Malayala Manorama newspaper dated 20.05.2021, representations have been sent to the 1st respondent, to refrain from operating the proposed fish market. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record.
(i) In Laxmi Raj Shetty and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu
[(1988) 3 SCC 319], at paragraphs 25 and 26, the Hon'ble Supreme
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -14-
Court held as under:
"25. ............ We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspapers is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspapers report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein.
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -15-
"A newspaper report without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second-hand secondary evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible.
We need not burden the judgment with many citations. There is nothing on record to substantiate the facts as reported in the newspapers showing recovery of the stolen amount from the residence of Appellant 2 at Mangalore. We have therefore no reason to discard the testimony of PW 50 and the seizure witnesses which go to establish that the amount in question was actually recovered at Madras on the 29th and the 30th as alleged."
(ii) In S.A. Khan v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another reported in
(1993) 3 SCC 151: AIR 1993 SC 1348, at paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"22. In the present case, no evidence has been let in proof of the statement of facts contained in the newspaper report. The absence of any denial by Ch. Bhajan Lal will not absolve the applicant from discharging his obligation of proving the statement of facts as appeared in the Press report. In fact, Ch. Bhajan Lal in his counter affidavit has taken a stand that the statements attributed to him based on the newspaper report are mere hearsay and cannot in law be relied upon for the purpose of initiating such proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of required legal proof, the Court will not be justified in issuing a suo motu notice for contempt of court."
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -16-
(iii) In Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. The State of Assam and
Ors ., reported in AIR 1999 SC 3571, at paragraph 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"25. Newspaper reports regarding the Central Government decision could not be any basis for the respondents to stop action under the Assam Control Order of 1961. The paper reports do not specifically refer to the Assam Control Order, 1961. In fact, Government of Assam itself was not prepared to act on the newspaper reports, as stated in its wireless message. Section 81 of the Evidence Act was relied upon for the appellant, in this behalf, to say that the newspaper reports were evidence and conveyed the necessary information to one and all including the respondents 2 and 3. But the presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 to newspaper reports cannot be treated as proof of the facts stated therein. The statements of fact in newspapers are merely hearsay Laxmi Raj Setty v. State of Tamil Nadu [1988CriLJ1783]."
(iv) In Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court reported in
(2004) 13 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"4. At the very outset, we put it to the petitioner that a bare perusal of the petition shows that it is based entirely on newspaper reports and asked him whether before filing the petition he has taken care to verify the facts personally. His answer is in the negative. In the writ petition all the 21 High Courts have been included as respondents and Union of India
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -17-
has also been impleaded as the 22nd respondent. We asked the petitioner what has provoked him to implead all the High Courts as respondents and he states that it is his apprehension that similar incidents may occur in other High Courts though there is no factual foundation for such appreciation.
(v) In Rohit Pandey v. Union of India reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"1. This petition purporting to be in public interest has been filed by a member of the legal fraternity seeking directions against the respondents to hand over the investigation of the case pertaining to recovery of light machine gun, which is said to have been stolen from the army according to reports published in two newspapers, to the Central Bureau of Investigation for fair investigation to ensure that the real culprits who are behind such theft of army arms and ammunition endangering the integrity and sovereignty of the country may be brought to book and action may be taken against them in accordance with law. The only basis for the petitioner coming to this Court are two newspaper reports dated 25-1-2004, and the other dated 12-2-2004. This petition was immediately filed on 16-2-2004 after the aforesaid second newspaper report appeared. On enquiry from the learned
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -18-
counsel, we have learnt that the petitioner is a young advocate having been in practice for a year or two. The Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh, have been arrayed as party respondents. In the newspaper reports, there is no allegation either against the Union of India or against the Chief Minister.
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -19-
that the petitioner is a young advocate, we feel that the ends of justice would be met and the necessary message conveyed if a token cost of rupees one thousand is imposed on the petitioner "
(vi) In Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra
and Ors. [(2007) 14 SCC 281], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“18. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu (1995) ILLJ 622 SC, and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr. [1994] 1 SCR 857. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran (1996 CriLJ 3983)]. Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public.
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -20-
interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. It is also noticed that petitions are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several cases newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.”
petition does not satisfy the requirements of a public interest writ petition. Petitioner claiming himself to be a public spirited person, has not made any enquiry, before filing the writ petition, for the reliefs, as stated supra. Purely based on newspaper reports and hearsay, writ petition appears to have been filed.
In the light of the above, writ petition is dismissed with a cost of
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -21-
Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to Account No. 3922992468-4 of the State Bank of India, Trivandrum City (70028), P. B. No. 22, M. G. Road, Statue – 695 001 with IFS Code SBIN0070028, maintained for providing financial aid to the children in the State of Kerala, who are suffering from rare diseases, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, the District Collector, Ernakulam, the 2nd respondent, is directed to initiate recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
Eb
///TRUE COPY///
P. A. TO JUDGE
W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2021 -22-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15780/2021
| PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 |
TRUE COPY EXECUTIVE ITS TRANSL |
OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY ASST ENGINEER,PWD DATED 27/5/19 ALONG WITH ATION |
|---|---|---|
| Exhibit P2 | THE TRUE C TRANSPORTA IDENTIFYIN BLACK SPOT |
OPY OF REPORT FROM NATIONAL TION PLANNING AND RESEARCH CENTRE G AND PRIORITIZATION OF ACCIDENT S IN KERALA STATE |
| Exhibit P3 | TRUE COPY DATED 20/5 |
OF NEWS REPORTS IN MANORAMA DAILY /19 ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION. |
| Exhibit P4 | TRUE COPY MENTIONING TRANSLATIO |
OF MANORAMA DAILY DATED 20/12/19 BLACK SPOT ACCIDENTS ALONG WITH ITS N |
| Exhibit P5 | TRUE COPY SUBMITTED ERNAKULAM |
OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22/09/2020 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, |
| Exhibit P6 | TRUE COPY SUBMITTED CONTROL BO |
OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22/09/2020 BEFORE THE CHIEF ENGINEER,POLLUTION ARD,ERNAKULAM |
| Exhibit P7 | TRUE COPY SUBMITTED STATION AL |
OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22/09/2020 BEFORE THE SHO,CHERANELLOOR POLICE ONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION |
| Exhibit P8 | TRUE COPY WHERE THE MARKET TO |
OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE YARD PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF PRIVATE NH |
| Exhibit P9 | TRUE COPY SUBMITTED DIVISIONAL |
OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15/07/2021 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE OFFICER,ERNAKULAM |
| Exhibit P10 | TRUE COPY SUBMITTED EXECUTIVE |
OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15/07/2021 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENGINEER, NH-PWD,ERNAKULAM |
| Exhibit P11 | TRUE COPY SUBMITTED PANCHAYATH |
OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15/07/2021 BY THE OFFICE OF CHERANELLOOR GRAMA |
| Exhibit P12 | TRUE COPY ISSUED BY PANCHAYATH |
OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19/07/2021 THE OFFICE OF THE CHERANELLOOR GRAMA |
| Exhibit P13 | TRUE COPY 28/10/2015 TRANSPORT |
OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ROAD AND HIGHWAYS |
| Exhibit P14 | TRUE COPY PERMISSION STATIONS,W PROPERTIES AND SUCH O ISSUED BY |
OF REVISED GUIDELINES FOR GRANT OF FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ACCES TO FUEL AY SIDE AMENITIES, CONNECTING , OTHER ROADS, REST AREA COMPLEXES THER FACILITIES DATED 26/06/2020 THE 6TH RESPONDENT. |
1 issue framed by the court
Could a public interest petition seeking to stop a proposed fish market near a highway be entertained on newspaper reports and hearsay without enquiries with competent authorities?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v. C.K.Rajan & OthersRelied on¶42
[(2003) 7 SCC 546] · Who else cites this
B. Radhakrishna Menon v. State of Kerala and Ors.Relied on¶63
B. Radhakrishna Menon v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Laxmi Raj Shetty and Another v. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶98
[(1988) 3 SCC 319] · Who else cites this
S.A. Khan v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and AnotherRelied on¶107
(1993) 3 SCC 151: AIR 1993 SC 1348 · Who else cites this
Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. The State of Assam and OrsRelied on¶111
AIR 1999 SC 3571 · Who else cites this
Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High CourtRelied on¶114
(2004) 13 SCC 485 · Who else cites this
Rohit Pandey v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶119
(2005) 13 SCC 702 · Who else cites this
Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors.Relied on¶127
[(2007) 14 SCC 281] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.K.VARGHESE
THE SECRETARY CHERANALLOOR PANCHAYATH
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD
THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION
STATE OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
