A public interest petition sought consideration of a representation questioning a government corporation Managing Director's track record, suitability and qualifications. The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable in a service matter and closed pending interlocutory applications.
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
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 8274 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SUDHEESH.S
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O SUNDARAN, AMBIKA SADANAM,
PUNALUR PAPER MILLS P.O, PUNALUR.P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 033.
BY ADVS.
MAYA M.
V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695 001.2 THE STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, FARM HOUSE, P.B.NO. 13, VETTITHITTA.P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 689 696.3 SHIBUKUMAR L., USHA BHAVAN, ALAYIL NJANADOORKONAM, CHEMBAZHANTHY.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 587.SRI. S.RENJITH, SPL. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2022
S.Manikumar, C.J.
Alleging that Mr.Shibukumar L., respondent No.3, does not have good track record and not suitable or qualified for the post of Managing Director of the State Farming Corporation of Kerala Limited (respondent No.2), Exhibit P11 representation seemed to have been submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent - State of Kerala represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram. Contending inter alia that the said representation has not been considered, instant public interest litigation is filed for a mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on the above.
appearing for the writ petitioner and perused the material available on record.
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
3
Court on the aspect of public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters:
“(i) In Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others , reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the decision in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and others (1976) 1.S.C.C. 671, the law declared in Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, and the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, held as follows:-
“18....... Section 3 (b) defines the word 'application' as an application made under Section 19. The latter Section refers to 'person aggrieved'. In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have already seen that the work 'order' has been defined in the explanation to sub-s. (1) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in Section 3 (q) as service matters could be brought before the Tribunal. It in that context, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an application before the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated.
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
4
judgement is relevant:
"....A reading of the aforesaid provisions would mean that an application for redressal of grievances could be filed only by a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of the Act.”
Tribunals are constituted under Article 323 A of the Constitution of India. The above Article empowers the Parliament to enact law providing for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government and such law shall specify the jurisdiction, powers and authority which may be exercised by each of the said Tribunals. Thus, it follows that Administrative Tribunals are constituted for adjudication or trial of the disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. Its jurisdiction and powers have been well-defined in the Act. It does not enjoy any plenary power." We agree with the above reasoning.
(ii) In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B ., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 5 to 16, held as follows:-
“5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression “public interest litigation”. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 (4th Edn.), “public interest” is defined thus:
“Public interest.—(1) A matter of public or general interest ‘does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
5
their legal rights or liabilities are affected’.”
“Public interest.—Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government.”
“The expression ‘litigation’ means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexical the expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
6
of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.”
“It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.”
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
7
and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters — government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of tax cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenus expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions of luxury litigants who have nothing to lose but trying to gain for nothing and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants.
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
8
The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
“Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts which provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.”
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
9
encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
10
can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts at times are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273, this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of the so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. This tendency is being slowly permitted to percolate for setting in motion criminal law jurisdiction, often unjustifiably just for gaining publicity and giving adverse publicity to their opponents. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out whether it was a bona fide venture. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs, as it prima facie gives impression about oblique motives involved, and in most cases shows proxy litigation. Where the petitioner has not even a remote link with the issues involved, it becomes imperative for the court to lift the veil and uncover the real purpose of the petition and the real person behind it. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
11
right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.”
(iii) In Dr. B.Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India , reported in (2004) 3 SCC 363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the case on the same lines and held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
(iv) In Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab , reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters. Relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced:
“13. When a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object. Since in service matters public interest litigation cannot be filed there is no scope for taking action for contempt, particularly, when the petition is itself not maintainable. In any event, by order dated 15.4.2002 this Court had stayed operation of the High Court's order.”
(v) In Indian Consumers Welfare Council v. Union of India and another , reported in 2005 (3) L.W. 522, the abovesaid Council, filed a public interest writ petition, challenging a notification, issued by the 2nd respondent therein, by which, applications were invited, from degree holders, with degree in education, and consequently, prayed for a direction to the respondent therein, to appoint only those teachers, who were trained in teaching primary sections, for handling classes from 1st to 7th standards, to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers. Following the decision in
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
12
Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab , reported in 2005 J.T. [5] SC 389, a Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court held as under:
“This is a public interest litigation in respect of a service matter. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that no public interest litigation lies in service matters, the last decision being Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab , (2005 J.T. [5] SC 389). Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.”
(vi) In N. Veerasamy v. Union of India , reported in (2005) 2 MLJ 564, while considering a public interest litigation filed by a treasurer of a political party, praying to take action again Mrs.Lakshmi Pranesh, IAS, the fifth respondent therein, under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, for allegedly making allegations against a leader of a political party, following the above judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-
"It is settled law that no writ in the form of public interest litigation will lie under Article 226 of the Constitution in service matters. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the public interest litigation. The extraordinary powers of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution in matters of this kind is required to be used sparingly and only in extraordinary cases." "The service matters are essentially between the employer and the employee and it would be for the State to take action under the Service Rules and there is no question of any public interest involved in such matters."
"The petition is not only not maintainable either in law of facts but also would amount to abuse of the process of Court."
(vii) In B.Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees Association and
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
13
others , reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731, at paragraph 61, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in service matters only the non appointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure.
(viii) In Neetu v. State of Punjab , reported in (2007) 10 SCC 614, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
“The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this court in various cases.”
“Referring to the decisions in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others , reported in 1998 (7) SCC 273 and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B reported in (2004 (3) SCC 349), cited supra, the Apex Court held that PIL in service matters has been held as not maintainable.”
(ix) In Seema Dharmdhere, Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 290, the Hon'ble Apex Court restated that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
(x) In Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and other s, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 655, claiming himself as Vidyut Shramik Leader, a writ petition was filed before the High Court, challenging the appointment of Mr.Hari Bansh Lal, who was appointed, as the Chairman of Jharkand State Electricity Board. The High Court declared that his appointment was not only arbitrary, but also, contemptuous, and ultimately, quashed his appointment, which gave rise to an appeal, before the Apex Court. Addressing the issue, as to
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
14
whether a public interest writ petition, is maintainable in service matters, following the earlier decisions in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others , reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B reported in [(2004) 3 SCC 349] and other decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“PIL in service matters:
The same principles have been reiterated in the subsequent decisions, namely, Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Others , (2004) 3 SCC 363, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Others , (2005) 1 SCC 590 and
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
15
Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Other s, (2005) 5 SCC 136.
(xi) In Girjesh Shrivastava and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and other s, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 707, appointments were challenged in PIL, on the grounds of contravention of rules, regarding reservation of exservicemen. The High Court allowed the writ petition and ordered cancellation of appointments, and dismissed the review petitions also. While considering the issue, as to whether the matter ought to have been taken, as service dispute and not PIL, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering a catena of decisions, at paragraphs 14 to 19 has held as follows:-
“14. However, the main argument by the appellants against entertaining WP (C) 1520/2001 and WP(C) 63/2002 is on the ground that a PIL in a service matter is not maintainable. This Court is of the opinion that there is considerable merit in that contention.
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
16
filed when the entire dispute relates to selection and appointment.
(xii) In Soma Velandi v. Dr.Anthony Elangovan , reported in (2010) 4 CTC 8, following Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab , reported in JT 2005 (5) SC 389, a Hon'ble Division Bench held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
(xiii) In Bholanath Mukherjee and others v. Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Centenary College and others , reported in (2011) 5 SCC 464, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a direction to set aside the appointment of the 3rd respondent therein, as Principal, was sought for, as the 3rd respondent was junior, to them, and did not have the requisite qualification. Reiterating the legal position that PIL is not maintainable in service matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to entertain the challenge to the notices issued to Ramakrishna Mission to reconstitute the committees.
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
17
(xiv) Though the present writ petition has been filed by a practicing advocate, we wish to incorporate the views of the Hon'ble Apex Court, while entertaining Public Interest Writ Petition, in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others , reported in [(2013) 4 SCC 465]. At paragraphs 14 and 15, the Hon'ble Apex Court, observed as follows:
“14. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of the court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, “ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a Visa. Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide: P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr. , AIR 1980 SC 856; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. , (2010) 2 SCC 114; State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. , (2010) 3 SCC 402; and Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. , (2011) 7 SCC 69).
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
18
State of Punjab & Ors. , AIR 2007 SC 758).”
(xv) In Vishal Ashok Thorat and Ors. v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Ors., reported in AIR 2019 SC 3616, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that PIL in service matters is not maintainable.”
In the light of the decisions stated supra, instant writ petition is not maintainable. Hence it is dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
S.Manikumar Chief Justice
Sd/-
Shaji P.Chaly Judge
vpv
W.P.(C)No.8274 of 2022
19
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8274/2022
PETITIONExhibit |
ER EP1 |
XHIBITSTRUE COPY OF THE2ND RESPONDENT CO |
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THEMPANY. |
|---|---|---|---|
Exhibit |
P2 |
TRUE COPY OF THE1732/13/AD DATED |
GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.03.10.2013. |
Exhibit |
P3 |
TRUE COPY OF THEGO(MS).NO.228/201 |
GOVERNMENT ORDER5/AD DATED 27.11.2015. |
Exhibit |
P4 |
TRUE COPY OF THESUBMITTED BY THEENGLISH TRANSLATI |
REPORT DATED 15.11.2016VIGILANCE OFFICER ALONG WITHON. |
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VIGILANCE
ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU DATED 08.05.2019 ALONG
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.VE 02/2017/SRT
DATED 09.04.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE
SUPERINTENDENT OF VIGILANCE ANTICORRUPTION
BUREAU ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS).NO.
78/2017/AGRICULTURE DATED 02.06.2017 ALONG WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT).NO.859/2018/AGRI. DATED 17.08.2018 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT).NO.299/ 2019/AGRI DATED 23.03.2019 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER, GO(MS)NO.100/2021/AGRI DATED 05.11.2021 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.01.2022 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. //true copy//
P.A. to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Was a public interest petition seeking consideration of a representation against the suitability and qualifications of a government corporation's Managing Director maintainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and othersRelied on¶30
(1998) 7 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and othersReferred¶30
(1976) 1.S.C.C. 671 · Who else cites this
Chandra Kumar v. Union of IndiaReferred¶30
(1997) 3 SCC 261 · Who else cites this
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.BRelied on¶39
(2004) 3 SCC 349 · Who else cites this
Dr. B.Singh (Dr.) v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶78
(2004) 3 SCC 363 · Who else cites this
Gurpal Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶79
(2005) 5 SCC 136 · Who else cites this
Indian Consumers Welfare Council v. Union of India and anotherRelied on¶81
2005 (3) L.W. 522
N. Veerasamy v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶86
(2005) 2 MLJ 564
Neetu v. State of PunjabRelied on¶93
(2007) 10 SCC 614 · Who else cites this
Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and othersRelied on¶97
(2010) 9 SCC 655 · Who else cites this
Girjesh Shrivastava and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and othersRelied on¶109
(2010) 10 SCC 707 · Who else cites this
Soma Velandi v. Dr.Anthony ElangovanRelied on¶119
(2010) 4 CTC 8
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and othersRelied on¶123
[(2013) 4 SCC 465] · Who else cites this
Vishal Ashok Thorat and Ors. v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Ors.Relied on¶129
AIR 2019 SC 3616 · Who else cites this
SUDHEESH.S
STATE OF KERALA
THE STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.
SHIBUKUMAR L.
S.MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court