Dismissed

Johnson Padamadan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Dec 2022WA/604/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's order dismissing a PIL alleging misappropriation by a transport officer. Upholding the lower court, the Court held allegations were baseless and the writ petition was an abuse of process, imposing costs on the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal dismissed; appellant directed to pay costs as directed by the Single Judge.

Johnson Padamadan Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W. A. No. 604 of 2021

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶8

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶9

¶10

WA NO. 604 OF 2021

¶11

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 10608/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶12

APPELLANT/S:

¶13

JOHNSON PADAMADAN
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. LONACHAN, PRESIDENT, KERALA BUS TRANSPORT
ASSOCIATION STATE COMMITTEE, REG.NO.710/2006,
SALU COMPLEX, MISSION QUARTRS JUNCTION, T.B.
ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶14

BY ADVS. SHABU SREEDHARAN
DHEERENDHRA KUMAR

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND VIGILANCE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

2 THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE PMG, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶18

3 THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶19

4 THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶20

5 SAMUEL KODIPLACKAL HOSUE, IRUMAPRAMATTAM, KOTTAYAM-686 586. (RETIRED AS DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.)

¶21

W. A. No. 604 of 2021

¶22

-2-

¶23

6 BABU JOHN REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686 661.

¶24

7 SMITHA JOSE C. MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030. BY ADV GIRIJA K GOPAL K. P. HARISH, SR. GP.

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶26

FOLLOWING:

¶27

W. A. No. 604 of 2021

-3-

J U D G M E N T

Shaji. P. Chaly, J.

Petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 10608 of 2020 has preferred this writ appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.03.2021, whereby the following relief sought for by the petitioner was declined and dismissed the writ petition imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the 7^th respondent:-

¶32

“To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 & 2 to register a vigilance case and to conduct a detailed investigation regarding the inspection of vehicles by the 7^th respondent near the toll booth of Indira Gandhi Road, Wellington Island on 8.10.2014, the alleged incident of loss of file, the real things happened including the actual collection and the role of the respondents 4 to 6 in extending unholy help to the 7^th respondent in the matter.”

¶33

Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as

¶34

hereunder:-

¶35

Appellant is the President of Kerala Bus Transport Association State Committee. According to the appellant, the said

¶36

W. A. No. 604 of 2021

¶37

-4-

¶38

association is very much concerned about the total mismanagement in the functioning of the office of the Commissioner of Transport, the 4^th respondent, and the subordinate offices, and also very much aggrieved about the unauthorized, illegal and corrupt practices on the part of the officers thereto, prejudicially affecting the rights and interests of the member vehicle owners of the association.

¶39

The paramount contention advanced by the appellant is that while working as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in the Sub Regional Transport Office, Mattancherry during 2014-2015, Smt. Smitha Jose C., the 7^th respondent, conducted an unauthorized inspection of vehicles, and by concocting a story of loss of file, amount collected as fine etc., misappropriated a huge amount belonging to the Government. Without taking appropriate action in the matter, respondents 4 to 6, who are the superiors of the 7^th respondent, closed the matter by realizing the amount as per the version of the 7^th respondent. Appellant has preferred Exts. P8 and P9 complaints before the 4^th respondent, Ext. P10 complaint before the 3^rd respondent and Ext. P12 complaint before respondents 1 to 3, seeking appropriate reliefs in the matter, but in vain.

¶40

W. A. No. 604 of 2021

¶41

-5-

¶42

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the party respondent refuting the allegations, and has also produced various documents including a judgment rendered by this Court in W. P. (C) No. 12875 of 2019 dated 05.11.2019. It is contended by the 7^th respondent that the attempt of the appellant is to malign the Motor Vehicle authorities and the appellant has failed to establish any case before the learned Single Judge. It is also pointed out that the appellant has no manner of connection with the incident alleged in the writ petition and therefore the appellant is not entitled to maintain any public interest writ petition with respect to the incidents alleged.

¶43

The learned Single Judge after considering the rival submissions and taking into account the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. [(2013) 2 SCC 398] , dismissed the writ petition imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the 7^th respondent. It was further directed that if the amount is not paid within one month, the District Collector, Ernakulam

¶44

shall initiate recovery proceedings for realization of the amount. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:-

¶45

“8. Having heard the learned Counsel at length, I find

¶46

W. A. No. 604 of 2021

¶47

-6-

¶48

substantial force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 7^th respondent that the writ petition amounts to an abuse of process of court. It is an undisputed fact that pursuant to the petitioner's complaint regarding loss of documents and cash, a crime was registered at the Harbour Police Station and the police, after investigation, reported the crime to be undetected. Ext.P2 final report was filed on 06.04.2015 and no action, either in the form of a protest complaint or a request for further investigation, was taken by the petitioner. All that is done later was to send Ext.P8 representation dated 09.02.2016 requesting the Transport Commissioner to transfer the petitioner and conduct an enquiry. As far as the departmental proceedings against the 7^th respondent is concerned, it is settled law that third parties has no right to challenge the disciplinary proceedings and that, there is no scope for public interest litigation in service matters.

¶49

Coming to the factual allegations, I am constrained to observe that the petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate the contention that the 7^th respondent could not have conducted the checking after duty hours. On the other hand, the 7^th respondent has succeeded in establishing that an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector being a full time officer, no particular time for checking of vehicles is prescribed. In order to substantiate the allegation that the actual amount lost is Rs.4,45,000/-, the petitioner has produced Exts.P14 to P16 receipts. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the 7^th respondent that Exts.P14 to P16 are receipts issued towards collection of fine for major violations by national permit vehicles, where as the 7^th respondent had collected the fine for minor violations committed

¶50

W. A. No. 604 of 2021

¶51

-7-

¶52

by vehicles plying within city limits. It was also alleged that Exts.P14 to 16 are produced to mislead this Court. Neither the contention, of the receipts issued by the 7^th respondent being entirely different from Exts.P14 to 16 receipts, nor the contention that Exts.P14 to P16 are produced to mislead the Court, is controverted or attempted to be explained. The aforementioned factors compel me to reach at the unequivocal conclusion of the writ petition having been filed with the sole objective of defaming and demoralising the 7^th respondent.

¶53

Having come across repeated instances of frivolous litigations being filed by the vested interests, the Apex Court has set forth principles that should govern the litigants while approaching the court. Two among those principles stated in Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P., [(2013) 2 SCC 398], which according to me, are contextually relevant, are extracted hereunder:

¶54

“32.1.Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with “unclean hands”. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor are entitled to any relief.

¶55

32.2.The people, who approach the court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.”

¶56

W. A. No. 604 of 2021

¶57

-8-

¶58

Despite the attempts to curb abuse of the public interest jurisdiction, the propensity to file frivolous cases, garbed as public interest litigations, is on the increase. The instant writ petition is a classic example of such abuse, which leaves me with no option, but to dismiss the writ petition with costs.

¶59

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the 7^th respondent. If the cost is not paid within one month, the District Collector, Ernakulam shall initiate recovery proceedings for realisation of the amount.”

¶60

It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal is preferred.

¶61

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Dheerendhra Kumar, learned counsel for the 7^th respondent Smt. Girija K. Gopal and learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. K. P. Harish for the State and its officials and perused the pleadings and material on record.

¶62

The sole question to be considered is whether any interference is required to the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶63

On a perusal of the facts and circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that unwanted and baseless allegations were made

¶64

W. A. No. 604 of 2021

¶65

-9-

¶66

against the 7^th respondent who was an Assistant Motor Vehicle inspector at the time of incident in the year 2014. The incident had taken place on 08.10.2014 and the writ petition was filed before this Court only in the year 2020. It is also important to note that the allegation made by the appellant in the writ petition was that the 7^th respondent has misappropriated an amount of Rs. 4,45,000/-, however it is clear from the documents produced and the pleadings put forth by the 7^th respondent that the amount that was collected and lost by the 7^th respondent along with other documents while vehicle inspection was carried out was only Rs. 21,400/-. In fact, a crime was registered by the Police, however the same was referred and a final report was filed by the Police on 06.04.2015 before the concerned Magistrate court stating that the crime could not be detected.

¶67

So also it can be seen that the learned Single Judge has considered the issue in depth and elaborately taking into account all the documents and the pleadings put forth by the rival parties. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of Ext. R7(b) judgment filed by the party respondent along with the counter affidavit dated 05.11.2019 in W. P. (C) No. 12875 of 2019 filed by the Kerala Bus Transport Association represented by its Secretary in respect of

¶68

W. A. No. 604 of 2021

¶69

-10-

¶70

corruption allegation against one of the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department. In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge found that the allegations made are baseless and reckless and accordingly a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed against the Association, and the District Collector was directed to take action for recovery of the amount if amounts are not paid within a period of one month. We are informed that the petitioner therein has filed a review petition which is pending consideration before this Court without even bringing up the same for admission.

¶71

The appellant is the President of the very same association which was imposed with a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- in Ext. R7(b). Therefore it can be seen that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with costs taking into account the entire gamut of the issues raised by the appellant and also taking note of the conduct of the Association and its members.

¶72

In such circumstances, we do not think the appellant has made out any case of jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities justifying our interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court

¶73

W. A. No. 604 of 2021

¶74

-11-

¶75

Act, 1958.

¶76

Needless to say, appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶77

Since the time limit prescribed for payment of cost is already over, we direct the appellant to pay the cost as directed within a month from today failing which the District Collector, Ernakulam shall take adequate action to recover the amount resorting to the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.

¶78

Sd/S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶79

Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶80

¶81

///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE

Johnson Padamadan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johnson Padamadan v. State of Kerala

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

Union of India, Vs Leela Dayanandan

The Managing Director, Vizhinjam International Sea Port Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs M/S. Poothotta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its Director Shaji K Mathew

Vidyamandir Educational Charitable Society Vs the Registrar

Quilon Educational Trust Vs Paristhithi Samrakshana Ekopana Samithi

Quilon Educational Trust Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate