Kerala High Court
Saji Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 17 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.4149 OF 2021(S)
PETITIONER:
SAJI JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. T.P. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT THIRUTHANATHIL HOUSE,
CHAMPANNOOR, ANGAMALY SOUTH P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 573.
BY ADVS. SRI. V. HARISH
SRI. RAJAN VISHNURAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 KERALA STATE BAMBOO CORPORATION LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, P.B. NO. 20,
ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM-683 573.
3 THE CHAIRMAN,
KERALA STATE BAMBOO CORPORATION LIMITED, P.B. NO. 20,
ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM-683 573.
4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE BAMBOO CORPORATION LIMITED, P.B. NO. 20,
ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM 683 573.
R1 BY ADV. SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE.
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SMT. LATHA ANAND, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C):4149/2021 2
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, CJ
Challenging Exhibit-P7 notification said to have been issued and
obtained from the website of the Kerala State Bamboo Corporation
Limited, represented by the Chairman, Ernakulam, respondent No.2,
instant Public Interest Litigation is filed by the petitioner seeking for
the following reliefs:
I. Call for the entire records leading to Exhibit P7
relating to the proposed recruitment and to quash the
same to the extent of appointment of Plant Workers,
Depot Workers, and Unskilled Workers, by issuance
of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ
direction or order;
II. Declare that the 2nd respondent may conduct the
fresh recruitment process only after the improvement
in its financial position and payment of the pending
dues to all its employees, retired employees, and the
statutory authorities;
III. Declare that the 2nd respondent is duty bound to
conduct a proper test and interview for recruitment,
for the key posts like Finance Manager, Marketing
Manager, Mechanical Manager, and Civil Engineer.
2. Facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that
petitioner Mr. Saji Joseph, an Advocate by profession, has claimed
that he is the General Secretary of Bamboo Board Factory Workers'
Union. He has stated that there is abuse of power by respondents 2 to
4 viz., Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited, represented by the
Chairman, Ernakulam; the Chairman, KSBCL; and its Managing
Director, respectively, in making appointments to the post of Plant
Workers, Depot Workers, and Unskilled Workers, in order to
accommodate the sympathizers of ruling party in the Kerala State
Bamboo Corporation Limited.
3. According to the petitioner, as per Exhibits-P6 and P7, the
2nd respondent Corporation is intending to make appointments to
various posts, including that of Plant Workers, Depot workers, and
Unskilled Workers. He has contended that for some other key
posts, the Corporation has decided to avoid test and recruit only
through interview.
4. Petitioner has further stated that for hundreds of years, Dalit
and Adivasi communities of Kerala have transformed bamboo reeds
into a variety of productions, with functional and ornamental uses.
Their creativity and ability to adapt to the changing demands saw the
weavers making varieties of baskets, mats, winnowers, window
screens, bags etc.
5. Petitioner has further stated that the respondent Corporation
is already reeling in numerous litigations, involving non-payment of
dues to its employees and statutory fees etc., as evident from
Exhibits-P1 to P5.
6. As a result of the above, the original work force had been cut
short to 62 members from 80 during 2011.
7. It is also stated that most of the workers presently, have
worked only for 80 days in an year and their salary was kept pending,
due to some financial exigencies. According to the petitioner, the
actual work available at present can be easily completed by 40
employees, and 22 employees are in excess.
8. Petitioner has further stated that the Employees' Provident
Fund Organisation has issued demand notices, seeking payment of
contribution amounts, due to the employer, as well as to the
employees. The 2nd respondent has challenged the demand notices
before this Court in W.P.(C) No.2624 of 2019 and vide Exhibit-P1
judgment dated 29.01.2019, a learned single Judge of this Court,
disposed of the said writ petition, permitting the Kerala State Bamboo
Corporation Limited, petitioner therein, to discharge its liabilities to
the EPF Organisation in 20 installments and with a further direction
that the regular contributions due, shall also be paid by the
Corporation.
9. Petitioner has further stated that though such a relief was
granted to the 2nd respondent, the Corporation was unable to make
the payments and subsequently, sought for a review of the said
judgment, in R.P. No.450 of 2019. Thereafter, vide Exhibit-P2 order
dated 3.7.2019, this Court permitted the 2 nd respondent to remit the
entire arrears in 62 installments, taking into consideration its
financial situation.
10. In the meanwhile, petitioner had an occasion to come
across articles in digital and print media dated 19.09.2020 (Exhibits-
P3 and P4), wherein it is stated that the Kerala State Bamboo
Corporation Limited, is in huge financial debt, standing at a loss of
over Rs.80 Crores and, therefore, the Corporation is unable to meet
the statutory payments due to its employees.
11. Hence, the petitioner has approached the Human Rights
Commission and sought interference. Therein, a statement has been
filed by the Corporation stating that it has an accumulated loss of
about Rs.80 Crores and that the Corporation is being run only on the
financial assistance of the Government.
12. Petitioner has further stated that considering the dire
financial crises of the 2nd Corporation, vide order dated 11.06.2020,
the 1st respondent, State of Kerala, represented by the Chief
Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram, has sanctioned an amount of Rs.3
Crores to the Corporation, as an interim measure, to ensure that the
respondent resumes production, and the said amount would be
treated as working capital loan, repayable by the 2nd respondent,
within 5 years. In furtherance of the above, the petitioner came to
know that an amount of Rs.1.5 Crores was also released to the 2 nd
respondent by the Industries Department. Despite the receipt of
above amounts, the 2nd respondent has not been able to pay off its
statutory dues or even its liabilities.
13. Petitioner has further stated that while the matter stood
thus, he had another occasion to see an advertisement in Exhibit-P6
daily dated 13.01.2021, wherein it is stated that applications were
called for appointments to the post of Plant Workers, Depot Workers,
Unskilled Workers, Finance Manager, Marketing Manager, Civil
Engineer, and Mechanical Engineer, in the 2nd respondent
Corporation. Hence, he obtained Exhibit-P7 notification from the
website of the 2nd respondent.
14. Petitioner has contended that while appointments to the
post of Finance Manager, Marketing Manager, Civil Engineer, and
Mechanical Engineer, may be a requirement for the 2 nd respondent, to
improve the functioning of the Corporation, the appointments now
sought to be made are unnecessary, in as much as half the present
employees have worked only for about 80 days in a year. According
to him, the appointments now made are in order to include the
workers and sympathizers of the ruling party in the roll of the 2 nd
respondent Corporation.
15. Referring to Exhibit-P8 office order dated 03.03.2016,
petitioner has stated that several backdoor entries have been made
by the 2nd respondent in such manner and later-on, regularised the
same, at the instance of the then ruling party. He has also referred to
Exhibit-P9, a newspaper article dated 9.2.2021 published in
Manorama daily, and submitted that recently the Chairman of the 2 nd
respondent Corporation, has made a statement in a press meet that,
they will appoint the ruling party sympathizers, who apply for the
above mentioned posts, and that, as the Chairman, during an
interview for the posts, would give marks to the applications, and that
there is nothing wrong in the same. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
has filed the instant writ petition for the reliefs stated supra.
16. On the above pleadings, petitioner has raised the following
grounds:
A. Exhibit-P9 newspaper article dated 9.2.2021 clearly
indicates the personal bias of the 3 rd respondent in the
recruitment process. Hence, it is evident that the
recruitment process now initiated through Exhibit-P7 is
with a mala fide intention. The policy decision, as well as
the action and manner of the recruitment of employees,
through Exhibit-P7, by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 suffer
from arbitrariness, unreasonableness and absurdity.
Hence, the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court
to ensure that the public interest is protected to save the
2nd respondent Corporation.
B. The act of respondents Nos. 2 to 4, to recruit an
additional workforce, consisting of Plant Workers, Depot
Workers, and Unskilled Workers, in addition to the
existing workforce of the 2nd respondent Corporation, is
per se detrimental to the proper functioning of the
Corporation and is done, with the sole intention to
accommodate the sympathizers of ruling party into the
roll of the 2nd respondent Corporation. This is illegally
done with mala fide interests and abuse of the taxpayer's
money from the public exchequer.
C. The 2nd respondent is in a state of acute financial
exigency that it is presently surviving and staying afloat
solely on the financial assistance being provided by the
Government as admitted by the 4th respondent. Even
then, the dues to its employees remain unpaid and
pending in a string of litigations. However, they are
ignoring all these aspects and have decided to go in for
fresh recruitment. According to the petitioner, the same
is only to accommodate the members and sympathizers of
the ruling party just on the eve of the impending
elections. Any attempt to make fresh appointments, that
too, in large numbers, as Plant Workers, Depot Workers,
and Unskilled Workers, may be resorted to only after the
financial debts are settled or cleared by the 2 nd
respondent. Hence, Exhibit-P7 recruitment may not be
permitted till the financial situation in the 2 nd respondent
improves and the dues are settled.
D. It is to be noted that earlier there were two shifts,
working in the 2nd respondent, which had been reduced
to a single shift, due to the decrease in demand, and also
the shortage of supply of reed. As of now, the employees
have worked only for about hardly 80 days in a year and,
that too, only for about 38 employees, and the rest of the
employees are sitting idle throughout the year. Thus,
there is no requirement, at present, for further
employees and even the employees, who are on the rolls,
are being paid their salary only in installments, that too,
with huge delay. Recovery proceedings are pending
against the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in relation to the non-
payment of its statutory dues to various retired
employees and moreover, contempt applications are also
pending, seeking the compliance of the directions to
make immediate payments to the employees.
Appointment of further more employees in the cadre of
Plant Workers, Depot Workers and Unskilled Workers
will create further burden on the Corporation to disburse
salary and other benefits of even the existing workers of
the Corporation.
E. Perusal of Exhibit-P5 statement of the 4 th respondent
dated 12.03.2019 would reveal that the defense taken by
the Corporation in various pending litigations is the acute
financial crisis, which, however, is not seen reflected in
the attempt to make fresh recruitment. The entire
exercise, therefore, lacks bona fides, illegal, unjust,
improper, and is liable to be interfered by this Court in
public interest.
F. That apart, perusal of Exhibit P9 would reveal that the 3 rd
respondent has openly declared their intention that they
are only interested to hire the sympathizers of the ruling
party to the posts of Plant Workers, Depot Workers and
Unskilled Workers. This is per se illegal and clear abuse
of power and authority by the 3rd respondent. Petitioner
has contended that as per the dictum laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Central
Bureau of Investigation & Ors reported in (2017) 16
SCC 442, he has approached this Court for protection of
the rights of the public from the abuse of power by the
respondents Nos. 2 to 4.
G. Referring to Exhibit P8 petitioner has contended that it is
a usual practice of the ruling Government that new
recruits, who are taken into the roll of the 2 nd respondent,
are then regularized. This is constantly done by the 2 nd
respondent at the instance of the Government in power
and thus, caused additional financial burden to the
already existing liabilities of the 2nd respondent.
H. The decision to conduct appointments to key posts like
Finance Manager, Mechanical Engineer, Marketing
Manager, Civil Engineer, etc., without conducting proper
test, and only through interview is unfair, illegal, and is
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
17. Based on the above grounds, learned counsel for the
petitioner made submissions.
18. Heard Mr. Rajan Vishnuraj, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and perused the material on record.
19. Exhibit-P6 is the advertisement made in Mathrubhumi daily
dated 13.01.2021, and it reads thus:
"13.01.2021 Wednesday Mathrubhumi
Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited
P.B. No.20, Angamaly South - 683 573
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited invites applications to
the post of the following:
1. Finance Manager 2. Marketing Manager
3. Civil Engineer 4. Mechanical Engineer
Details and instructions for applying to the above mentioned posts
are available in the Board's website www.bambooworldindia.com.
Last date for applying online is on 23.01.2021. Applications
submitted without following the instructions will be rejected
summarily.
12.01.2021 Sd/-
Managing Director
Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited
P.B. No.20, Angamaly South - 683 573
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications to the following posts in the units operating under
Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited:
1. Plant Worker - Bamboo Board Factory, Angamaly.
2. Depot Worker - Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited.
3. Unskilled Worker - Hitech Bamboo Flooring Tile Factory.
Details and instructions for applying to the above mentioned posts
are available in the Board's website www.bambooworldindia.com.
Last date for applying online is on 23.01.2021. Applications
submitted without following the instructions will be rejected
summarily.
12.01.2021 Sd/-
Managing Director
20. Exhibit-P7 is the impugned notification obtained from the
website of the 2nd respondent Corporation, the relevant portion of
which is extracted hereunder:
"Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd.
Building a Successful Bamboo Community
Applications are invited from candidates for Kerala State
Bamboo Corporation Ltd., based on qualification
mentioned below. Interested candidates may send their
application through our website on or before 27.01.2021,
05.00 pm.
Mode of Selection: Test/Interview"
Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd.
Building a Successful Bamboo Community
Home About Company Bamboo Products Gallery Contact Carriers
in Kerala
1 Plant Worker 17 nos 1. SSLC,
(KSBC/21/R/ preference will
005) be given to
those who have 18-35 as 2750-70- Apply
pass ITI. on 3800-75-
01.01.202 4625
(Min)
3. Weight-48 kg
(Min)
4. Priority will be
given to the
children of
traditional
Reed. Bamboo
workers and
Mat weavers.
5. 10 Years Age
relaxation
benefits will be
given only for
the candidates
those who
belong to Depot
workers in
Kerala State
Bamboo
Corporation Ltd.
2 Depot 15 nos 1. SSLC,
Worker preference will
(KSBC/21/R/ be given to 18-35 as 2000-50- Apply
006) those who have on 2250-75-
pass ITI. 01.01.202 3750
2. Height 162 cm
(Min)
3. Weight-48 kg
(Min)
4. Priority will be
given to the
children of
traditional
Reed. Bamboo
workers and
Mat weavers.
3 Unskilled 10 nos 1. SSLC,
worker preference will
(High tech be given to 18-35 as 2750-70- Apply
Bamboo those who have on 3800-75-
flooring title pass ITI. 01.01.202 4625
Kozhikode 2. Height 162 cm
(Min)
3. Weight-48 kg
(Min)
4. Finance 1 nos 1 year experience in a
manager CA or ICWA reputed large or
(KSBC/21/R/ medium scale
001) company in a senior
position in finance
department
3 year experience in a
M. Com with CA reputed large or
Intermediate medium scale
company in a senior
position in finance
department
5. Marketing 1 nos MBA from recognised Minimum 2 years 35 years Rs.6675
Manager University accrued experience in the as on -175-
(KSBC/21/R/ through a full time field of marketing 01.01.2021 7550-
002) course with preference will be 200-
specialization in given to those who 10550
marketing have experience in
companies were
production and Apply
marketing of plywood
is carried out.
6. Mechanical 2 nos B-Tech in Mechanical 2 year experience in a 35 years Rs.6675
Engineer engineering with 1st reputed company of as on -175-
(KSBC/21/R/ class from a wood industry 01.01.2021 7550-
003) recognized University preferable in the field 200-
of wood treating etc. 10550
Apply
7. Civil 1 Nos B-Tech in Civil 2 year experience in a 35 years Rs.6675
engineer engineering with 1st reputed company as on -175-
(KSBC/21/R/ class from a 01.01.2021 7550-
004) recognised University 200-
10550
Apply
21. Exhibit-P9 is the newspaper article dated 9.2.2021
published in Malayala Manorama daily and it reads thus:
"Malayala Manorama
Appointment to Bamboo Corporation; No problem aiding
LDF candidates, says the Chairman
'Appointments are transparent'
Angamaly: The Chairman of the Bamboo Corporation K.
J. Jacob, under the leadership of LDF has stated that
there is no issue in aiding LDF people to job get
appointed there. "Those who have connection with LDF
party wishes to have our help to get appointed here. If it
is possible to do something for that, we will do it. But it
will be done fairly. Chairman has the right to grant marks
in interview. What is the problem in giving that mark to
the sympathizers and supports?" he asks.
He says that appointments are transparent and nobody
can interfere in it. Public sector institution has appointed
to conduct the test.
Appointment to jobs will be only after interview and the
permission of the High Court accordingly, says K.J Jacob."
22. It is evident from the pleadings that the Government on
11.06.2020 have sanctioned a sum of Rs.3 Crores to the Kerala State
Bamboo Corporation Limited, respondent No.2, as working capital,
repayable within 5 years. According to the petitioner, in spite of
release of Rs.1.5 Crores, the 2nd respondent was not able to pay off its
statutory dues or even its liabilities. He has further stated that in
2011, there was a reduction in workforce. Further contention is that,
because of the alleged statement made by the Chairman of the
Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited, respondent No.2, as
reported in a newspaper, only the ruling party members and its
sympathizers will alone be appointed. When the 2 nd respondent is
facing financial constraints, recruitment would be detrimental to the
proper functioning of the Corporation.
23. Petitioner has further contended that when recovery
proceedings are pending, recruitment sought to be made, is illegal.
Regularisation of a Plant Worker, made in the year 2016, is also cited
as one of the reasons for the prayers sought for.
24. Merely because there was reduction in workforce, in the
year 2011, it cannot be contended that there shall not be any
recruitment in the subsequent years, and moreso, after 10 years. So
also, merely because the 2 nd respondent is in financial constraints, to
pay off its liabilities, and that, there are litigations between the
employees and the Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Limited, 2 nd
respondent, there would not be a ground to contend that the 2nd
respondent should not make any recruitment to the posts, notified.
25. It is trite that recruitment, in any institution, is made,
depending upon the need, for the proper functioning of such
institution. Even taking it for granted that the 2 nd respondent is facing
a financial constraint, in a given case, there could be retirement,
resignation, etc., causing vacancies in some posts, and there may be a
recruitment to create posts. Contention that there should be total
ban on recruitment, for the reasons stated above, cannot be
countenanced.
26. Bias alleged on the basis of a newspaper report cannot be
accepted, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that
newspaper report cannot be the basis of Public Interest Litigation. On
the said aspect, let us consider a few decisions.
(i) In Laxmi Raj Shetty and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
reported in (1988) 3 SCC 319, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as under:
"32...............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 aliened. A report in a newspaper 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 newspaper
report cannot be treated as proved of the facts
reported therein.
33. It is now well-settled that a statement of fact
contained in a newspaper 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 No. 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:
"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."
(ii) In Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court
reported in (2004) 13 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held as under:
"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.
5. 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."
(iii) In Rohit Pandey v. Union of India reported in (2005)
13 SCC 702, Hon'ble Apex 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.
2. 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 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 "
(iv) 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.
19. 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."
27. Bias alleged is purely apprehensive and not substantiated.
Regularisation said to have been made in the year 2016, cannot be a
subject matter in this writ petition of the year 2021. None of the
grounds made in this writ petition are justifiable to grant the reliefs
sought for by the petitioner.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
S. Manikumar
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Shaji P. Chaly
Judge
krj
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO. 2624 OF 2019 DATED
29.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.P. 450 OF 2019 DATED 03.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM
https://www.thenewsminute. com/article/once-famousbamboo-products-
kerala-village-losing-its-tradition-117043.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI
DAILY ON 19.09.2020 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN HRMP 6960/17/EKM FILED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 12.03.2019
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT MADE IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY
DATED 13.01.2021 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OBTAINED FROM THE WEB SITE OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT IE. http://www. bambooworldindia.co,/global
index.php?fname=jobvacancy
EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 03.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT REGULARIZING THE POST OF A PLANT WORKER.
EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 09.02.2021 PUBLISHED IN
MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//true copy/
P.A. TO C.J.
