Johnson Padamadan vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 7557 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                WP(C).No.10608 OF 2020(A)


PETITIONER/S:

           JOHNSON PADAMADAN
           AGED 60 YEARS
           S/O. LONACHAN, PRESIDENT, KERALA BUS TRANSPORT
           ASSOCIATION STATE COMMITTEE, REG. NO.710/2006,
           SALU COMPLEX, MISSION QUARTERS JUNCTION, T. B.
           ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 001.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
           NITIN RAJAN NAIR
           UNAIS K.P
           SHRI.JOBIN JOSE P.
           SMT.RADHIKA U.

RESPONDENT/S:

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

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

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

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

     5     SAMUEL
           KODIPLACKAL HOUSE, IRUMAPRAMATTAM, KOTTAYAM -
           686586.
 W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020
                            2




           (RETIRED AS DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER FROM
           THE OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS
           TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAD P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
           695 014.)

     6     BABU JOHN
           REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA,
           ERNAKULAM - 686661.

     7     SMITHA JOSE C.
           MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
           OFFICE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

           R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
           R7 BY ADV. SMT.GIRIJA K GOPAL

OTHER PRESENT:

           PP T.R.RENJITH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27-01-2021, THE COURT ON 04-03-2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020
                                   3



                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of March, 2021

Petitioner claims to be the President of

Kerala Bus Transport Association State Committee

and as such, concerned about the functioning of

the office of the Transport Commissioner and the

unauthorised, illegal and corrupt practices

adopted by officers in the Motor Vehicles

Department. The specific allegation in the writ

petition is against the corrupt practices adopted

by the 7th respondent, while working as Assistant

Motor Vehicle Inspector at the Sub Regional

Transport Office, Mattancherry. The particular

instance highlighted by the petitioner is the

vehicle checking conducted by the 7th respondent on

08.10.2014, near the Toll Booth on the Indira

Gandhi Road in Wellingdon Island. According to the W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

petitioner, the checking was conducted after duty

hours and without obtaining prior permission from

superior officers. It is alleged that the 7th

respondent had reached the spot in her husband's

car and not in the departmental vehicle. That,

during the course of inspection, the folder

containing the fine amount collected, the check

report book, TR-5 book and seized driving licences

kept inside the car were reportedly lost. Instead

of reporting the matter at the Harbour Police

Station situated close by, the 7th respondent

lodged a complaint before the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Mattancherry and the

complaint was forwarded to the Harbour Police

Station only on 11.10.2014, three days after the

incident. Even though a crime was registered under

Section 379 IPC, it was closed as undetected.

Instead of conducting a departmental enquiry and W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

imposing severe punishment on the 7th respondent,

the superior officials blindly accepted her

explanation and closed the proceedings by

directing to recover the amount of Rs.21,400/-

lost from the possession of the 7th respondent.

According to the petitioner, the actual amount

collected by the 7th respondent was Rs.4,45,000/-

and the claim of having collected only Rs.21,400/-

as fine, is false. The petitioner filed Ext.P8

complaint before the 4th respondent, seeking a

detailed enquiry into the misconduct of the 7th

respondent and appropriate departmental action

against her. The complaint having evoked no

response, the petitioner filed Ext.P12 before the

1st respondent, praying for registration of crime

against the 7th respondent and an enquiry by the

Vigilance Department. Ext.P12 also being left

unanswered, the writ petition is filed seeking the W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

following relief:

"1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to register a vigilance case and to conduct a detailed investigation regarding the inspection of vehicles by the 7th respondent near the tool booth of Indira Gandhi road, Welligdon Island on 08.12.2014, 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 7th respondent in the matter."

2. In her counter affidavit, the 7th

respondent has refuted the allegations, terming

them to be false, frivolous and ill-motivated.

Further, she has questioned the very

maintainability of the writ petition. According

to the 7th respondent, the writ petition is liable

to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

3. As regards the incident that took place on

08.10.2014, the version of the 7th respondent is

that, while returning home after conducting

checking near the CISF check post at Wellingdon W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

Island between 7.30 p.m and 9.00 p.m, she realised

that the folder containing the check report book,

TR5 receipt book, fine amount of Rs.21,400/- and

four driving licences seized by her were missing.

Immediately, she rushed back to the spot and

searched the entire area with the help of the CISF

personnel present there. Having failed to recover

the missing documents and cash, information was

given at the Harbour Police Station. But, the

police did not register a crime or enter the

information in the complaint register. Instead,

the crime was registered on 11.10.2014, that too,

after the 7th respondent approached the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, who directed the Station

House Officer, Harbour Police Station, to register

the crime. The Police failed to identify the

culprits or recover the stolen articles and filed

final report before the jurisdictional court, W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

requesting to treat the crime as undetected. The

loss of cash and receipt books resulted in

departmental action being initiated against the 7th

respondent. The disciplinary authority, after

providing opportunity to submit explanation,

found the 7th respondent to have been negligent in

handling the cash and documents. Consequently, the

fine amount of Rs.21,400/- lost from her

possession, was fixed as her personal liability.

Pursuant to the order issued by the Transport

Commissioner, the sum of Rs.21,400/- was recovered

from the salary of the 7th respondent.

4. Heard Sri.Shabu Sreedharan, learned

Counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Girija K.Gopal,

learned Counsel for the 7th respondent and Smt.Sony

K.B, learned Special Government Pleader

(Vigilance).

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

reiterated the allegations in the writ petition

and submitted that the 7th respondent had conducted

vehicle checking on 08.10.2014, after her duty

time, without prior permission and had reached the

spot in her husband's car. According to the

learned Counsel, nothing further is required to

prove that the checking was illegal and conducted

for personal aggrandisement. It is submitted that

the actual amount lost was not Rs.21,400/-, as

reported by the 7th respondent, but Rs.4,45,000/-

as per the information received from reliable

sources. Reliance is placed on Exts.P14 to P16

series of receipts to demonstrate that the fine

collected by the 7th respondent and allegedly lost

from her possession, would be much more than

Rs.21,400/-. According to the learned Counsel,

the superior officers of the 7th respondent had

acted hand-in-glove with her, by imposing only a W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

minor penalty for the serious offence of

defalcation of public funds. It is therefore

contended that, unless vigilance enquiry is

ordered, the true facts will not come to light and

the 7th respondent will remain unscathed.

6. Learned Counsel for the 7th respondent

refuted the contention and submitted that the writ

petition is nothing but witch hunting, motivated

by personal vendetta against her client, for

having carried out her duties honestly and without

succumbing to the dictates of the petitioner and

his Association. Copy of the relevant extract from

the Motor Vehicle Department Manual [Ext.R7(a)],

dealing with the functions and duties of Assistant

Motor Vehicle Inspectors, is relied on to contend

that an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector is a

full time field officer in charge of a circle and

hence, there no prohibition against an AMVI W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

conducting vehicle checking after regular office

hours. Strong exception is taken against the

allegation of the petitioner having collected

Rs.4,45,000/- during the checking conducted on

08.10.2014. It is contended that the allegation

is made without an iota of evidence and that

Exts.P14 to P16 receipts are produced with the

deliberate intention of misleading the Court. It

is pointed out that Exts.P14 to P16 series are

receipts issued towards collection of tax from

vehicles that had violated national permit

conditions and therefore, the quantum of amount

payable as fine would be much more than the fines

and compounding fees to be remitted for minor

violations. Reference is made to Ext.R7(b)

judgment of this Court and Ext.R7(c) order of the

State Information Commissioner, to contend that

the petitioner and the other office bearers of his W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

Association are in the habit of threatening and

filing false complaints/cases against honest

officers in the Motor Vehicles Department. That,

on realising the dubious motive, this Court had

dismissed W.P.(C) No.12875 of 2019 filed by the

Secretary of the petitioner's Association, with

cost of Rs.5,00,000/-. Likewise, the State

Information Commissioner had dismissed the

application seeking information filed by the writ

petitioner, finding that the information was

sought for settling personal scores and for

compelling honest officers to act as per the

directives of his Association.

7. In reply, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner submitted that, being a public spirited

citizen, he is legally entitled to bring the

malpractices committed by public servants to the

notice of the authorities, and on their failure to W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

act, to the notice of this Court. It is submitted

that, as against Ext.R7(b) judgment, a review

petition has been filed and that, Ext.r7(c) is

under challenge in a writ petition.

8. Having heard the learned Counsel at

length, I find 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 W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

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 7th 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.

9. Coming to the factual allegations, I am

constrained to observe that the petitioner has

miserably failed to substantiate the contention

that the 7th respondent could not have conducted

the checking after duty hours. On the other hand,

the 7th 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 W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

lost is Rs.4,45,000/-, the petitioner has produced

Exts.P14 to P16 receipts. It was contended by

the learned Counsel for the 7th respondent that

Exts.P14 to P16 are receipts issued towards

collection of fine for major violations by

national permit vehicles, where as the 7th

respondent had collected the fine for minor

violations committed 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 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 W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

demoralising the 7th respondent.

10. 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:

"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. 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."

W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

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.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed

with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the

petitioner to the 7th respondent. If the cost is

not paid within one month, the District Collector,

Ernakulam shall initiate recovery proceedings for

realisation of the amount.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/ W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ACP, MATTANCHERRY DATED 10.10.2014.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.872/2014 OF HARBOUR POLICE STATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JFCM COURT

- 1, KOCHI DTED 6.4.2015.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 9.10.2014.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.10.2014.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 13.08.2015.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 9.9.2015.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.2016.

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 9.2.2016.

EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3.5.2018.

EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITHOUT THE DOCUMENT PRODUCED THEREIN DATED 11.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPIES TO THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 DATED 5.2.2020.

EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE WITH REG.NO.KL7 BS 9687 TAKEN FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT DATED NIL.

EXHIBIT P14(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.786288 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 3.7.2015.

EXHIBIT R14(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.786286 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 3.7.2015.

EXHIBIT P14(C) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.786290 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 3.7.2015.

EXHIBIT P15(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.789643 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 5.11.2015.

EXHIBIT P15(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.789639 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 5.11.2015.

EXHIBIT P16(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.039111 W.P.(C) No.10608 of 2020

ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 8.1.2016.

EXHIBIT P16(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.039117 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 8.1.2016.

EXHIBIT P16(C) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.039119 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 8.1.2016.