A public interest challenge alleged that a petroleum outlet was opening without an NOC. The court found that an NOC already existed and that the petitioner had not verified the allegations. It dismissed the petition as frivolous with costs, directing recovery proceedings in default of payment.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 19399 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SELWIN.D., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.DEVADAS.V.S., NADIAR SOUTH, NALLATHANNI ESTATE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 612, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE LRA 24, SREE NANDANAM, LAKSHMI VILAKOM HOUSE, PALKULANGARA, PETTA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN M.A.ZOHRA MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN SHREEJI R. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
BY ADVS.SRI.TEKCHAND, SR.G.P.
SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC FOR R3 N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.
Petitioner in this public interest litigation is a resident of Thiruvananthapuram and is stated to be a person interested in the welfare of the public at large. The main concern raised by the writ petitioner is against the illegal inauguration of a petroleum outlet without mandatory No Objection Certificate as stipulated under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002.
i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to prevent the illegal inauguration of the Petroleum Outlet by the 3rd respondent without adhering to the mandates required for the same and obtaining a legal NOC from the District Authority and others concerned;
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to postpone the functioning and inauguration of the Petroleum Outlet until the NOC is obtained and all rules mandates as per statutory provisions are strictly adhered to.
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 3 ::
Rules, 2002 framed under the Petroleum Act, 1934 is in violation of public interest and principles of natural justice.
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 4 ::
Mr.E.K.Nandakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation/respondent No.6 submitted that the inauguration of the petroleum outlet by the third respondent is already over.
A17/348557/2021 Collectorate, Civil Station, Kudappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram, Dated: 11.08.2021
The Non Objection Certificate has been already granted by this office vide NOC No.36383/71/C3/K.dls dated 30.10.1971. Since NOC has been already granted, this office does not have any objection for the transfer of license to the Petroleum Retail Outlet situated at Block No.112 & 116, Re-survey Nos.1&3 (Old Survey Nos.2815, 2816, 2817, 2809 & 2810) TP No.5512 of Thycaud Village (Old Changanassery Village) Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District.
Sd/District Magistrate
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 5 ::
To
Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum & Explosive Safety Organization (PESO), Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, C-2, III Floor Kendriya Bhavan, Kakkanad, Kochi – 37.
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 6 ::
No.6/Indian Oil Corporation, third respondent is attempting to establish the petroleum retail outlet.
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 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
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 7 ::
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:
(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 ].
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 8 ::
(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.
(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 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
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 9 ::
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.
(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.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 10 ::
(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.
(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.
(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
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 11 ::
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.”
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 12 ::
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that writ petition filed purely based on newspaper reports is not maintainable:-
(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 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.
"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.
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 13 ::
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."
(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:
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 14 ::
"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 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 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.19399 of 2021
:: 15 ::
particularly by a member of the legal profession, it would be filed with all seriousness and after doing the necessary homework and enquiry. If the petitioner is so public-spirited at such a young age as is so professed, the least one would expect is that an enquiry would be made from the authorities concerned as to the nature of investigation which may be going on before filing a petition that the investigation be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Admittedly, no such measures were taken by the petitioner. There is nothing in the petition as to what, in fact, prompted the petitioner to approach this Court within two-three days of the second publication dated 12-22004, in the newspaper Amar Ujala. Further, the State of Uttar Pradesh had filed its affidavit a year earlier i.e. on 7-10-2004, placing on record the steps taken against the accused persons, including the submission of the charge-sheet before the appropriate court. Despite one year having elapsed after the filing of the affidavit by the Special Secretary to the Home Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, nothing seems to have been done by the petitioner. The petitioner has not even controverted what is stated in the affidavit. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed such a misconceived petition with exemplary costs but considering 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.19399 of 2021
:: 16 ::
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 17 ::
file the writ petition without ascertaining the correctness of the details. We are not satisfied with the abovesaid submission.
sd/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
jes
W.P.(C)No.19399 of 2021
:: 18 ::
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WA NO.170/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES dated 5.3.2020.
// TRUE COPY //
P.S. TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Did the challenge to opening a petroleum outlet satisfy PIL requirements when the petitioner had not verified whether the competent authority had granted an NOC?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v. C.K.Rajan & OthersRelied on¶58
[(2003) 7 SCC 546] · Who else cites this
B. Radhakrishna Menon v. State of Kerala and Ors.Relied on¶79
[W.P.(C) No.12109 of 2020]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SELWIN.D.
STATE OF KERALA
THE KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
THE KERALA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D., ROADS DIVISION
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
S.MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
