Dismissed

Abdul Kalam v. Secretary to Government

Kerala HC28 Sept 2021WP(C)/20165/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired employee filed a writ petition challenging Calicut University's decision to implement an automated storage retrieval system totaling over 20 crores rupees. The petition was based primarily on a newspaper report without independent verification. The High Court held that the petition failed to meet the requirements of a public interest litigation as it was a 'publicity interest litigation'

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; permission to withdraw declined; pending interlocutory applications closed.

Abdul Kalam Vs Secretary to Government — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2021)

¶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 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 6TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 20165 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

ABDUL KALAM
S/O.HASSAN, PUTHUKKUDI HOUSE,
KARANTHOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 571.
BY ADVS.
K.MOHAMMED FAISAL NAHA
P.A.PETER
TINTU GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶11

HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA,
VIDHYABHYASA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 1.

¶12

2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION

¶13

JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

¶14

3 CALICUT UNIVERSITY

¶15

REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. PIN 673 635.

¶16

4 VICE CHANCELLOR

¶17

CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. PIN 673 635.

¶18

5 FINANCE OFFICER, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. PIN 673 635.

¶19

6 CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. PIN 673 635.

¶20

SRI. TEK CHAND SR GP FOR R1 AND R2,
SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC FOR R3 TO R6

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Dated this the 28^th day of September, 2021

¶26

S.Manikumar, C.J.

¶27

A retired employee of Calicut University has filed the instant writ petition for the following reliefs:

¶28

“i. Call for records leading to Ext.P1 U.O. No. 1326/2019/ Admn., according sanction to implement Automated Storage Retrieval System (ASRS) and set aside the same as the one being unnecessary and misuse of public fund.

¶29

ii. To command the 3^rd respondent by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing to stop all further proceedings in implementing ASRS system as referred in clause 2 of Ext P1 university Order dated 28-01- 2019.

¶30

iii. To command the 3^rd respondent by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing to furnish the details of machineries and equipments purchased within the last 5 years, its purpose, the amount expended, whether it is working properly or not.

¶31

iv. To command the 1^st respondent by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction

¶32

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶33

¶34

directing to enquire into the details of machineries and equipments purchased by the 3^rd respondent university within the last 5 years, its purpose, the amount expended, whether it is working properly or not and to initiate strict action against the wrongful officers if so found and to compensate the loss the university incurred from out of their pockets.”

¶35

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as

¶36

hereunder:

¶37

Calicut university is about to implement Automated Storage and Retrieval System (ASRS) expending more than 20 crores rupees for retrieval and re-valuation of answer sheets, sanction accorded as per Exhibit P1 U.O. No. 1326/2019/Admn.

¶38

According to the university, the system will help to easy the re-valuation procedure and will be accurate and that it is least expensive, since no huge number of workers are necessary.

¶39

Petitioner apprehends that it is only a clever tactics of university to reap unjust benefit by way of commission by purchasing and implementing a system which is unnecessary, complicated and expensive.

¶40

Automated Storage and Retrieval System (ASRS) is useful for Big industries for retrieval of products come into and goes from store again and again which require retrieval

¶41

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶42

¶43

of same product multiple time. As far as revaluation of answer papers is concerned, it needs to retrieve only one time and this answer papers are meant to keep only for three years.

¶44

The present method adopted by the university is that: The answer papers from various colleges are kept in the well arranged "Racks", in the nearby camp offices of university and whenever, answer papers needed revaluation, it is sort out from each camps and sent for revaluation keeping necessary formalities.

¶45

But by implementing ASRS system, it requires that all the answer papers of various colleges have to be sent to the university and all these papers need to be put in the system. Such works need technical knowledge, time consuming and expensive.

¶46

It is the usual practice of the university to purchase machineries expending crores under the pretext of modernisation and put such machineries in the godown or in the corners of veranda without any use. According to the petitioner, intention of implementing ASRS is to attain unjust benefit by way of commission. 7 information kiosks machines (APT KIOSKMODEL Alpa - 300) purchased for RS.6,65,000/and door access system purchased as shown in Ext P3 U.O. expending Rs.5,24,628/- are lying in the veranda without any use and as a disturbance to all. It is to be noted that the door access system worked for a day alone.

¶47

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶48

¶49

Attempt of the University to minimise the workers, by expending huge amount than required for worker’s salaries and expenses in the present system is arbitrary, illegal and unjust. It is denial of a valuable right of the poor to have a means of life.

¶50

The amount required for these type of expenses are to be taken from plan fund of university with the concurrence of the Government. To overcome this problem the university is understood to have taking the funds from "own" fund of the university ignoring the precedence and law, and objection from Finance Department. In all respect the future of innocent students are going to be affected because of implementing this unnecessary system.

¶51

Implementing this Automated Storage and Retrieval System (ASRS) also is with evil intention of looting public funds by way of commission. Hence this writ petition is filed to set aside Ext P1 U.O. No.1326/2019/Admn and also for other reliefs.

¶52

Posed with a question as to whether the petitioner has

¶53

made any efforts to ascertain as to how Calicut University had decided to implement automated storage and retrieval system in the University, Mr.K.Mohammed Faisal Naha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite efforts, he could not obtain

¶54

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶55

¶56

any information from the University.

¶57

Material on record does not disclose that the petitioner has made any effort, as submitted. That apart, writ petition seems to have been filed on the basis of Exhibit P2, a news item reported in Times of India, about the decision of the University, to implement automated storage and retrieval system.

¶58

On more than one occasion, Hon’ble Supreme Court held

¶59

that writ petitions are not maintainable on mere newspaper reports. On the aspect of a public interest litigation purely based on newspaper report, let us consider the following decisions:

¶60

(i) 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:

¶61

"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."

¶62

(ii) In Laxmi Raj Shetty and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu

¶63

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶64

¶65

[(1988) 3 SCC 319], at paragraphs 25 and 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

¶66

"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.

¶67

It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspapers is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The accused should have therefore produced the persons in whose presence the seizure of the stolen money from Appellant 2's house at Mangalore was effected or examined the press correspondents in proof of the truth of the contents of the news item. The question as to the admissibility of newspaper reports has been dealt with by this Court in Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Femandez and Ors. [(1969) 3 SCR 603]. There the question arose whether Shri George Femandez, the successful candidate returned to Parliament from the Bombay South Parliamentary Constituency had delivered a speech at Shivaji Park attributed to him as reported in the Maratha, a widely circulated Marathi newspaper in Bombay, and it was said:

¶68

"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."

¶69

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶70

¶71

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 29^th and the 30^th as alleged."

¶72

(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:

¶73

"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]."

¶74

(iv) In Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court reported in

¶75

(2004) 13 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

¶76

"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 22^nd 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

¶77

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶78

¶79

that similar incidents may occur in other High Courts though there is no factual foundation for such appreciation.

¶80

After affording the full opportunity of hearing, we are satisfied that what purports to have been filed as a public interest litigation is nothing more than a "publicity interest litigation". It is writ large that it has been filed without any effort at verifying the facts by the petitioner personally."

¶81

(v) In Rohit Pandey v. Union of India reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

¶82

"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.

¶83

We expect that when such a petition is filed in public interest and 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

¶84

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶85

¶86

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 12-2-2004, 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 "

¶87

(vi) In Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors. [(2007) 14 SCC 281], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

¶88

“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

¶89

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶90

¶91

Courts and among the public.

¶92

As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public 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.”

¶93

Decision of Calicut University (Exhibit P1), U.O.No.1326/2019/Admn dated 28.1.2019, shows that a committee was constituted by the Syndicate for studying the latest technology used for human resource management, finance, examination system, etc followed in Savithribai Phule Pune University and after considering the report submitted by the

¶94

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶95

¶96

committee, consisting of several Academicians, viz, Controller of Examinations and Director, CUCC, etc, Calicut University has resolved to implement automated storage and retrieval system in the University. The decision of Calicut University dated 28.01.2019 is reproduced:

¶97

“UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

¶98

Abs t r act

¶99

Calicut University Computer Centre- Implementation of the Report of the committee entrusted by the Syndicate to visit Savithribai Phule, Pune University to study the system of examinationAutomatic Storage retrieval System in Calicut University – Sanctioned – Orders issued.

¶100

U.O.No.1326/2019/Admn Dated, Calicut University P.O, 28.01.2019

¶101

Read:-1. U.O.No. 13171/2018/Admn Dated 12.11.2018.

¶102

Extract of the urgent item No. 2018.1415 of the minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 28.12.2018.

¶103

Orders of the Vice Chancellor in the file of even no dated 28-01-2019.

¶104

ORDER

¶105

As per paper read (1) above, a committee was constituted by the Syndicate for studying the latest technology used for HR management, Finance, Examination system, etc. followed in the Savithribai Phule Pune University, including Prof. P. Mohan, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Prof. R Bindhu, Member Syndicate, Sri. K.K Haneefa, Member Syndicate, Dr. C.L. Joshy, Member Syndicate,

¶106

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶107

¶108

Dr. Georgekutty V.V., Controller of Examinations and Dr. Lajish. V L, Director, CUCC.

¶109

The committee has visited the Savithribai Phule Pune University and submitted a report in detail before the syndicate.

¶110

As per the reference read (2), the meeting of Syndicate held on 28.12.2018 considered the matter and has resolved

¶111

i. to implement the Automatic Storage retrieval System in Calicut University in view of the report of the committee

¶112

ii. to appoint Dr.Lalith Pawar, IT Manager, Savithribai Phule Pune University as consultant for implementing the project in Calicut University.

¶113

After considering the matters in detail, sanction has been accorded by the Vice Chancellor as paper read (3) above, for implementing the above resolution of the Syndicate.

¶114

Orders are issued accordingly.

¶115

Dr.Lajish V.L

¶116

Director, Calicut University Computer Centre”

¶117

When the deficiencies in fling of a public interest

¶118

litigation in terms of the above reported cases were brought to

¶119

the notice of Mr.Mohammed Faisal Naha, learned counsel for the petitioner, he sought permission to withdraw the writ petition.

¶120

As such, we are of the view that the writ petition does not satisfy the requirements of a public interest litigation. Hence,

¶121

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶122

¶123

permission to withdraw is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶124

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶125

Sd/-

¶126

S.Manikumar Chief Justice

¶127

Sd/-

¶128

Shaji P.Chaly Judge

¶129

vpv

¶130

W.P.(C)No.20165 of 2021-S

¶131

¶132

¶133

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶134

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF CUCC,
UO NO.1326/2019/ADMN SHOWING SANCTION
ACCORDED BY THIRD RESPONDENT, CALICUT
UNIVERSITY TO IMPLEMENT ASRS SYSTEM.
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN
M.TIMESOFINDIA.COM
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF ABSTRACT,
U.O.NO.3963/2021/ADMN. DATED 27.3.2021
SHOWING SANCTION ACCORDED FOR PURCHASE
OF DOOR ACCESS SYSTEM PAREEKSHA BHAVAN.

¶135

TRUE COPY

¶136

P.A. TO JUDGE

Abdul Kalam v. Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kalam v. Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sidharth Nair Vs State of Kerala

Central Board of Secondary Education, Vs Sandra Aravind.a.

The Central Board of Secondary Education Vs Fathimathu Zahra

Jayananda K.R Vs Union of India

A.K.M.Ashraf, Vs Union of India

Saju Thuruthikunnel Vs the District Collector