This judgment dismisses three connected writ petitions as withdrawn but imposes a twenty-five thousand rupee cost for filing them without disclosing pendency of similar suits, citing abuse of process under proviso to Rule 146.
Petitioners ordered to pay Rs. 25,000 costs to Mediation Centre; interim order vacated and petition dismissed without merits.
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 MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 39559 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 A. DWARAJ, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. SADASIVAN, AGED 53 YEARS, T/C.39/1739, ELANKOM VILAKOM VEEDU, MANACAUD P.O., TRIVANANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
2 RAJESH R., AGED 51 YEARS S/O. RAVI, T/C. 43/526, MOONWIND, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P. O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
BY ADVS. SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA LEEJOY MATHEW.V. AJITHA V.K. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559 of 2022,
15379 & 21828 2024 2
BY ADVS.SRI. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION SRI. G.RAJAN POTAYIL SMT. P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL), SC, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS SRI. YAMUNA RANI V.G. SRI. URMILA.M.G SRI. GOPIKRISHNA S.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).15379/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559 of 2022,
15379 & 21828 2024 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 15379 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
AGED 54 YEARS S/O SADASIVAN, RESIDING AT ELAMKAMVILAKATHU VEEDU VEEDU, TC.39/1739, MANACAUD P.O, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 605009
2 RAJESH R, AGED 51 YEARS S/O RAVI RESIDING AT MOON WIND , TC 43/526 KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
BY ADV AJITHA V.K. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY, THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 SUNIL KUMAR.M , S/O MRYTHUNJAYA PANIKER, RESIDING AT SUDHODHANA TC.43/29, THOTTAM MANACAUD P.O, PIN - 695009
R1 BY ADV SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559 of 2022, 15379 & 21828 2024 4
CORPORATION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).39559/2022, 21828/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559 of 2022,
15379 & 21828 2024 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 21828 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 RAJESH R, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. RAVI,MOON WIND, TC 43/526, KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
2 DWARAJ S, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. SADASIVAN,ELAMKAMVILAKATHU VEEDU,TC 39/1739, MANACADU P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
BY ADVS. ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL S.SREEDEV RONY JOSE LEO LUKOSE KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY DERICK MATHAI SAJI KARAN SCARIA ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695033
3 SUDHEER KUMAR M, S/O. MRTHYUNJAYA PANICKER,PAVITHRAM,
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559 of 2022,
15379 & 21828 2024 6
AMBALATHVILA,KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691301
4 SUNIL KUMAR M, S/O. MRTHYUNJAYA PANICKER,SUDHODHANA, TC 43/29,THOTTAM, MANACADU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
R1 & R2 BY SRI. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).15379/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559 of 2022, 15379 & 21828 2024 7
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
=========================
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559 of 2022, 15379 & 21828 of 2024
=========================
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2024
J U D G M E N T
W.P.(C.) No. 39559/2022 is filed challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Ombudsman dated 14.06.2022, directing the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram not to issue a licence unless the complainant therein or his brother makes an application. There is a further prayer in the said writ petition to consider the application for renewal of licence without reference to the order passed by the Ombudsman.
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559 of 2022,
15379 & 21828 2024 8
39559/2022 or 15379/2024. It is to be noted that all three writ petitions are filed through different lawyers. When this was noticed, withdrawal memos have been filed in W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559/2022 and 15379/2024 on 10.06.2024.
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559 of 2022, 15379 & 21828 2024 9
District Collector, Palakkad v. Devayani [2001 KHC 783] and held that the proviso added to Rule 146 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 is mandatory and the filing of the writ petitions without disclosing the same, is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. The non-disclosure while seeking an extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be permitted. Strict compliance to the proviso to Rule 146 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 has to be ensured to see that the administration of justice is not polluted in any manner. Again in the judgment reported in Babu C.G. v. South Indian Bank Ltd. and Others [2019 KHC 672] , this Court held that a litigant who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands and clean objects and no person should be allowed to abuse the judicial process particularly, in a public law remedy.
“I have not filed earlier petitions seeking similar and identical reliefs in respect of the same subject matter.”
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559 of 2022,
15379 & 21828 2024 10
Conciliation Centre, Ram Mohan palace, High Court of Kerala within ten days from today . A report shall be obtained from the said Centre as regards the compliance of the above direction.
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559/2022 and 15379/2024 are dismissed as withdrawn.
W.P.(C.) No. 21828/2024
In view of the judgment passed in W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559/2022 and 15379/2024, finding that there is a plain violation of the proviso to Rule 146 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 the same applies on all fours to this writ petition as well. Accordingly, the interim order granted by this Court on 19.06.2024 will stand vacated. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that no licence has been granted pursuant to the order above referred. Since the affidavit in this writ petition also did not mention the filing or pendency of the earlier writ petitions, I am not going into the merits of the writ petition and the same will also stand dismissed.
SD/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,
JUDGE
DCS
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559 of 2022, 15379 & 21828 2024 11
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39559/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 09-10-2017 EXECUTED IN BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND 2ND RESPONDENT AND HIS BROTHER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 01.12.2017 EXECUTED BY FIRST PETITIONER, 2ND RESPONDENT AND HIS BROTHER SUDHEERKUMAR Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2022 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2022 IN COMPLAINT NO. 222/2022 OF OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559 of 2022,
15379 & 21828 2024 12
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15379/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WHICH WAS VALID TILL 31/03/2024 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP( C) 22314/2022 DATED 15.01.2024 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5/4/2024 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.04.2024 IN R.P NO.442/2024 ANNEXURE R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H11/23355/22 DATED 30.04.24 OF THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
W.P.(C.) Nos. 39559 of 2022,
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21828/2024
15379 & 21828 2024 13
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 09.10.2017 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 27.03.2018 EXECUTED BY RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 01.12.2017 EXECUTED BY RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 AND THE 2ND PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 12.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 30/2019 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 101/2022 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 350/2022 OF THE MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION. |
| EXHIBIT P7(A) | TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.05.2024 BEARING |
| NO.86/RI ACT/2024/MCPS ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION STATING THE REFERRAL. |
|
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2022 IN COMPLAINT NO. 222/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.01.2024 IN WP(C) NO. 22314/2022 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2024 BEARING NO. H11/23355/22 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether withdrawal memos suffice to dismiss writ petitions where petitioners conceal pendency of similar petitions violating Rule 146 of High Court Rules?
Whether interim orders must be vacated when subsequent petitions lack disclosure of prior pendency?
What costs are payable when writ petitions are dismissed for abuse of process due to non-disclosure of earlier litigation?
A. Dwara j
Rajesh R.
The Secretary, Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram
Sunilkumar M.
Ombudsman for Local Self Governments
Mohammed Nias C.P.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Mohammed Nias C.P.
Parties & counsel
