Kerala High Court
M.N.Jayaram vs Additional Director General Of ... on 31 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
W.P.(C) NO. 8536 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
M.N.JAYARAM
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O LATE NARAYANA WARRIER,
RESIDING AT PISHARIKOVIL WARRIAM, EROOR,
TRIPUNITHURA-682 306.
Party in person
RESPONDENTS:
1 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CRIME
BRANCH), THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695 014.
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
TRIPUNITHURA DEVASWOM GROUP,
TRIPUNITHURA-682 301.
3 DEVASWOM OFFICER,
(PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER),
SHREE POORNATHRAYEESA TEMPLE, TRIPUNITHURA,
PIN-682 301.
4 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER,
SIC OFFICE, KERALA, PUNNAN ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5* SREE POORNATHRAESAKSHETHRA UPADESAKA SAMITHY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EAST NADA,
THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM- 682301.
2
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
*IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R5 AS PER
ODER DATED 30.11.2021 IN WPC 8536/2020
BY ADVS.
R1 & R4 BY SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SR.GP
R2 & R3 BY K.P.SUDHEER,SC,COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
R5 BY R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 19.07.2022, THE COURT ON 31.08.2022 DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
JUDGMENT
Ajithkumar, J.
The petitioner claiming to be a member of the RTI
Federation, Ernakulam District and activist filed this Writ
Petition invoking the provisions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. He seeks the following reliefs:-
"i) To set aside that part of Ext.P7 order dated
30.01.2020 of the 4th respondent directing the petitioner
to approach court and remand the case for proper
adjudication as per the RTI Act, 2005;
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the 1 st respondent to
investigate into the corrupt practices and financial
irregularities at the 3rd respondent Devaswom pertaining
to Vrischikolsavam 2018 at Poornathrayeesa Temple,
Tripunithura."
2. Alleging that the 3rd respondent refused to furnish
information as per Ext.P2 application of the petitioner dated
17.12.2018, he approached the 4th respondent by filing a
complaint, C.P.No.214/5/19/SIC. The 4 th respondent issued
Ext.P1 order directing the 3 rd respondent to furnish
information, which was with respect to the income and
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
expenditure of Vrischikolsavam 2018 in the Sree
Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura. Accordingly, Ext.P3
information was furnished. Dissatisfied with the correctness of
the answers given, the petitioner approached the 4 th
respondent again by filing another complaint, Ext.P6. As per
Ext.P7 order dated 31.01.2020, the 4 th respondent directed
the petitioner to approach the court for the redressal of his
grievance. Accordingly, he approached this Court with the
present Writ Petition.
3. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit,
producing therewith Exts.R3(A) and R3(B). An additional
counter affidavit was filed along with Ext.R3(C) to R3(I). It is
contended that the Writ Petition was filed without any bona
fides. The mother of the petitioner, Smt.Radha Warasyar was
a Kazhakom in Pisharikovil Temple, which is under
Chakkumkulam Devaswom of the Cochin Devaswom Board.
She filed W.P.(C) No.13926 of 2018 with a prayer that the
petitioner be allowed to help her in doing the work of
Kazhakom. As per Ext.R3(A) judgment, the said Writ Petition
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
was disposed of without acceding to the prayer. Later, the
petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.38036 of 2019 seeking police
protection. That Writ Petition was dismissed as per Ext.R3(B)
judgment. As per the direction in Ext.P1 information was
furnished. It is totally baseless that incorrect information was
furnished in Ext.P3. The petitioner approached the 3rd
respondent alleging that the information furnished to him was
not satisfactory. It was in the said circumstances, Ext.P4 order
was issued by the 4th respondent, which is not illegal. In fact,
the petitioner has been misusing the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (for short "RTI Act"), and therefore, the
Writ Petition is not liable to be entertained. This Court held that
the Temple Advisory Committees coming under the Malabar
Devaswom Board do not come under the purview of RTI Act and
the same principle is applicable to the 5 th respondent, which was
impleaded by this Court suo motu. Answers to question No.3 to 8
in Ext.P2 were furnished on the basis of the data given by the
additional 5th respondent. It is incorrect that the 3rd respondent
mechanically has given the information.
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
4. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the 3rd
respondent it is pointed out that even after furnishing Ext.P3,
the petitioner preferred applications seeking information with
respect to the same matters. Pursuant to Exts.P11(a) dated
17.09.2020 and Ext.P12 dated 02.01.2021 applications, the
3rd respondent obtained answers to similar queries. Thereafter
the 3rd respondent received Ext.R3(H) notice dated
07.03.2022 from the 4th respondent pursuant to a complaint
filed by the petitioner. A reply to the said notice was
submitted and a copy of the same is Ext.R3(I). It is evident
from the said aspects that the petitioner has been misusing
the provisions of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the 3 rd respondent
seeks to dismiss the petition.
5. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit,
wherein it is contended that the entire income and
expenditure in connection with Vrischikolsavam 2018 and
2019 were audited. The difference in the amount of donations
received in connection with the Vrischikolsavam Festival has
occurred, since the correct figure could be arrived only after
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
the audit. All the details regarding the income and
expenditure of Vrischikolsavam 2018 and 2019 were furnished
to the 3rd respondent. There is absolutely no irregularity in the
conduct of or financial matters connected to the Festival. All
information sought by the petitioner and available with the
respondent was already furnished.
6. Separate reply affidavits were filed by the
petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and
5.
7. The petitioner submitted oral arguments in person.
Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader, learned
Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned
counsel appearing for the additional 5th respondent.
8. The petitioner approached the 3rd respondent with
a grievance that the information required as per Ext.P2
application was not furnished by the 3 rd respondent. The 4th
respondent accordingly had issued Ext.P1 direction on
27.08.2019 to furnish all the information sought as per
Ext.P2. Accordingly, as per Ext.P3 answers to all the queries in
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
Ext.P2 were furnished on 08.10.2019. Of course, there was
delay. But the delay stood condoned as per the orders of the
4th respondent.
9. The petitioner again approached the 4 th respondent
with Ext.P6 petition, alleging that the information furnished by
the 3rd respondent was not satisfactory. It was after
considering that the 4th respondent issued Ext.P7. Paragraph
Nos.3 and 4 in Ext.P7 read as follows:
"3. പര ത ക രൻ സമർപ ച വ വര വക ശ
അപപകയക വ വര ലഭ മ ക യ ട ണ എന
എത ർകക വ ദ ക ന ണണങ ല ത"പ$ കരമ
വ ധ പര ത ക രന മറ പട ലഭ മ യ ട ല എന
കമ+ഷൻ വ ലയ ര തന . പ.ർണവ ത"പ$ കര
വ മ യ മറ പട എത ർകക നൽക യ ര ന
എങ ൽ പര ത ക രൻ ന രനര പര ത യ മ യ
കമ+ഷണന സമ+പ ക മ യ ര ന ല..
4. പമൽ സ ഹചര ത ൽ പര ത ക രനണറ
വ വര വക ശ അപപകയകഒര കൽ ക.ട മറ പട
തയ റ ക നൽകണണമന ന ർപ6ശ എസ.പ .
ഐ.യക നൽക ൻ കമ+ഷൻ ആഗ:ഹ ക ന ല.
ക.ട ണത ഇപത വ ഷയവ മ യ ന രവധ
അപപകകൾ പര ത ക രൻ സമർപ ച വര നത യ
കമ+ഷനണറ ഗശദയ ൽണപടത ണന ത ടർന,
ട യ നണറ ഗപശത? ന പര ഹ ര എന ര+ത യ ൽ
ബഹ . പക ടത ണയ സമ+പ ച ഗപശപ ? ര ഹ രത ന
ഗശമ പകണത ണണന പര ത ക രന ന ർപ6ശ
നൽക ന ."
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
10. The observation in Ext.P7 is that, had satisfactory
answers been given to the petitioner, he would not have
approached the 4th respondent Commission again. Observing
so, the 4th respondent as per Ext.P7 directed the petitioner to
approach the court for the redressal of his grievance and
thereby desisted from taking any action under Section 18 or
20 of the RTI Act. The petitioner would contend that the 4 th
respondent by issuing such a direction, has abdicated its
powers, and by refusing to exercise its powers in scant
disregard to the provisions under Sections 18 and 20 of the
RTI Act the 4th respondent acted illegally and irresponsibly.
11. A State Information Commission is constituted
under Section 15 of the RTI Act. Section 18 defines the
powers and responsibilities of the State Information
Commission. Section 18 reads,-
"18. Powers and functions of Information Commission.--
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the
duty of the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission as the case may be to receive
and inquire into a complaint from any person,--
(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
Central Public Information Officer, or State Public
Information Officer as the case may be, either by
reason that no such officer has been appointed under
this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public
Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or
her application for information or appeal under this Act
for forwarding the same to the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer
or Senior Officer specified in sub-section (1) of section
19 or the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be;
(b) who has been refused access to any information
requested under this Act;
(c) who has not been given a response to a request for
information or access to information within the time
limits specified under this Act;
(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee
which he or she considers unreasonable;
(e) who believes that he or she has been given
incomplete, misleading or false information under this
Act; and
(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting
or obtaining access to records under this Act.
(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission, as the case may be, is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect
thereof.
(3) The Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission, as the case may be shall,
while inquiring into any matter under this section, have
the same powers as are vested in a civil court while
trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in
respect of the following matters, namely:--
(4) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons
and compel them to give oral or written evidence on
oath and to produce the documents or things;
(b) requiring the discovery and inspection of
documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof
from any court or office;
(e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or
documents; and
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.
(4) Notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in
any other Act of Parliament, or the State Legislature, as
the case may be, the Central Information Commission
or the State Information Commission, as the case may
be, may, during the inquiry of any complaint under this
Act, examine any record to which this Act applies which
is under the control of the public authority, and no such
record may be withheld from it on any grounds."
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
12. If a second appeal is preferred by an aggrieved
person, the same has to be dealt with by the State
Information Commission under the provisions of Section 19 of
the Act. Section 20 of the Act empowers the State
Information Commission while deciding on a complaint or an
appeal to impose a penalty. Section 20 reads as follows:-
"20. Penalties.--
(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the
State Information Commission, as the case may be, at
the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the
opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or
the State Public Information Officer, as the case may
be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to
receive an application for information or has not
furnished information within the time specified under
sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the
request for information or knowingly given incorrect,
incomplete or misleading information or destroyed
information which was the subject of the request or
obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information,
it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty
rupees each day till application is received or
information is furnished, so however, the total amount
of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand
rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he
acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be.
(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the
State Information Commission, as the case may be, at
the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the
opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or
the State Public Information Officer, as the case may
be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently,
failed to receive an application for information or has
not furnished information within the time specified
under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied
the request for information or knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or
destroyed information which was the subject of the
request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action
against the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
under the service rules applicable to him."
13. In the said provisions, or anywhere else in the RTI
Act, no power is invested in the State Information
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
Commission to direct a complainant, who seeks information,
to approach the court for the redressal of his grievance. On a
perusal of Ext.P4 request submitted to the 3 rd respondent for
information and P6, the complaint submitted before the 4 th
respondent, it is quite clear that what the petitioner sought is
action under the RTI Act and nothing else. Needless to say
that the 4th respondent shall have powers that are invested on
it as per the provisions of the RTI Act and nothing more.
14. Question as to furnishing of information to the
petitioner against query Nos.1 to 8 mentioned in Ext.P4 alone
is the matter involved. The petitioner approached the 4 th
respondent with the grievance that incorrect or incomplete
information was furnished to him. It is then the absolute
statutory obligation of the 4th respondent to consider the
grievance of the petitioner and take an appropriate decision
as per the provisions contained in Section 18, 19 or 20 of the
RTI Act, as the case may be. The 4th respondent does not
have any authority to direct a complainant to approach the
court to get his grievance redressed with respect to a question
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
that is wholly coming within the purview of RTI Act. By issuing
such a direction in Ext.P7, the 4 th respondent abdicated its
powers and failed to discharge its statutory duties and
obligations. So much so, the direction in Ext.P7 is
unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
15. The question then is whether or not any further
action on the request of the petitioner for getting information
as per Ext.P4 is required. The definite contention of the 3 rd
respondent is that the petitioner without any bona fides has
approached it asking for same information repeatedly. It is
alleged that in order to wreak his personal vengeance, he has
been submitting applications one after the other claiming
information. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for
the 3rd respondent would place reliance on the decision of the
Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &
another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay [(2011) 8 SCC 497].
16. In answer to the said contention, the petitioner
would submit that he used to approach not only the 3 rd
respondent but also other temple authorities, whenever he
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
finds malpractices on the part of such authorities. He is an
activist and as a person interested to see that the affairs of
the temple are conducted in the proper way, he has been
trying to get information and take appropriate action
wherever it is required.
17. In Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra), the Apex Court
held,-
"37. The right to information is a cherished right.
Information and right to information are intended to be
formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to
fight corruption and to bring in transparency and
accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be
enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring
to light the necessary information under clause (b) of
Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing
transparency and accountability in the working of public
authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard
to other information,(that is information other than
those enumerated in Section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the
Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other
public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive
information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient
operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and
impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to
transparency and accountability in the functioning of
public authorities and eradication of corruption) would
be counter - productive as it will adversely affect the
efficiency of the administration and result in the
executive getting bogged down with the non-productive
work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act
should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to
become a tool to obstruct the national development and
integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and
harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted
into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest
officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not
want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public
authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and
furnishing information to applicants instead of
discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties
under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities
under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a
public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at
the cost of their normal and regular duties."
18. It is seen from Ext.R3(a) that the mother of the
petitioner wanted the Cochin Devaswom Board to allow the
petitioner to assist his mother in her work of Kazhakom in the
Pisharikovil Temple, which is under the management of the 3 rd
respondent. His request was not allowed. This Court directed the
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
mother of the petitioner to take a decision of her own on the
option of nominating another person in her place to do the work
of Kazhakom. Thereby the requirement of the petitioner to get
permission to assist her mother as the Kazhakom in Pisharikovil
Temple stood refused. Later, he filed W.P.(C) No.30386 of 2019
alleging that there were threats to his life since he sought certain
information from the temple authorities. As per Ext.R3(B), the
said prayer was declined holding that the actual dispute was in
relation to the right claimed by the petitioner or her mother in
the status as Kazhakom. From the said documents, it is evident
that the petitioner has reason to wreak vengeance against
Devaswom authorities.
19. A few other facts averred by the 3 rd respondent
further amplify the malafides of the petitioner. The petitioner
filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P7. His contention is
that the 4th respondent improperly exercised its jurisdiction on
his complaint . He has approached this Court by filing this Writ
Petition after Ext.P7, thereby he has presented his grievance
before this Court. When this Court seized of the matter it was
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
not possible or legally permissible for the petitioner again to
approach the 3rd or 4th respondent with fresh applications for
the same purpose.
20. Ext.P12 is an application for information submitted
by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent on 02.01.2021. As
per it he sought information with respect to the
Vrischikolsavam Festival 2018 including income and
expenditure statement, details of which were the information
mainly asked for vide Ext. P4 also. A perusal of Ext.P12(a)
which is the reply to Ext.P12 dated 02.01.2021 further evince
that what had been required in query Nos.3 and 4 were the
information already furnished to the petitioner. It is seen from
Ext.R3(H) that the petitioner approached the 4 th respondent
again raising grievance with respect to the same matter.
21. The scheme of the RTI Act is that a party seeking
information has to make the request in accordance with
Section 6; the disposal of the request shall be in accordance
with Section 7 and filing of an appeal where a person is
aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
Officer or the State Public Information Officers, in accordance
with Section 19. Section 18 provides for making complaints
and lays down the procedure for entertaining a complaint, and
also making enquiry. Section 18 thus enables the State
Information Commission to exercise complete control over the
functioning of the Public Information Officers in regard to the
receipt of application, furnishing of information and the
process of appeal under the RTI Act. Once a complaint is
entertained and enquired into by the State Information
Commission under Section 18 or an appeal is considered and
decided under Section 19 with regard to the request for
information from a public authority, that should be the final
decision in the matter binding the parties. Thereafter the
applicant cannot submit a new application before the Public
Information Officer or complaint under Section 18 or an
appeal or second appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act with
a request for the same information. No such request,
complaint or appeal a second time is entertainable under the
provisions of the RTI Act.
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
22. In that view, no person is permitted to approach
the same authority with successive applications to get the
same information. Hence, the act of the petitioner
approaching the 4th respondent raising the same allegations
as in Ext.P6 and seeking again to get information regarding
the income and expenditure for Vrischikolsavam Festival 2018
in Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura, is nothing but an
abuse of the process of law. The continuous and incessant
attempts of the petitioner to seek information with respect to
the same matter saying that he was not satisfied with the
answers itself is enough to conclude that his intention is
nothing but causing inconvenience to the public authorities
and not a bona fide one. As held by the Apex Court in Aditya
Bandopadhyay (supra) no person shall be allowed to misuse
or abuse the provisions of the RTI Act, especially when the
attempt is smacked by mala fides and done as a tool to
obstruct the smooth functioning of the office of the public
authority. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no
further action or direction with respect to the petitioner's plea
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
for getting information relating to the income and expenditure
of the Vrischikolsavam Festival 2018 or 2019 is required.
23. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondents 2 and 3 would contend that the Temple Advisory
Committee is not amenable to the provisions of the RTI Act
and therefore, Ext.P4 application insofar as it concerns the
details to be obtained from additional 5th respondent is not
entertainable. The learned Standing Counsel relied on the
principle laid down by this Court in A.C.Bhanunni @
Valluvanattukara Vallabha Valiya Raja v. Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.)
Department [2011 (2) KLT 312] to fortify that contention.
It was held that the Temple Advisory Committees constituted
in the Temples under the control of the Malabar Devaswom
Board are not amenable to the provisions of the RTI Act.
Religious institutions and endowments of the Malabar
Devaswom Board also were held to be not subject to the
provisions of the RTI Act. The main reason stated for that is
the Temples and functionaries under the Malabar Devaswom
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
Board are functioning not using the funds sanctioned by the
Government. Whereas, going by the definition of Section 2(h)
of the RTI Act, its provisions are applicable to establishments,
which are substantially funded, directly or indirectly, by funds
provided by the appropriate Government. The said proposition
is not applicable to the Temple Advisory Committees in the
Temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board. It may be noted
that as per Ext.P8, which is a circular issued by the Cochin
Devaswom Board regulating the constitution of Temple
Advisory Committees in the Temples under the Board, it has
been declared that the Temple Advisory Committees would
come within the purview of the RTI Act. In view of that the
contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin
Devaswom Board that the 5th respondent is outside the
provisions of the RTI Act cannot be accepted.
24. The second relief is to direct the 1st respondent to
investigate the malpractices and financial irregularities in the
3rd respondent Devaswom, pertaining to Vrischikolsavam
Festival 2018 in Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura. From
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
the averments in the Writ Petition, it can be seen that the
basis for seeking such a relief is that, in his view, there was
every chance for corruption and mismanagement of funds in
relation to the said Festival. He apprehends so for the reason
that there was delay in auditing the accounts. Further reasons
stated by him is that the answers given to his queries were far
from truth and his satisfaction. Besides raising such bald
allegations, nothing has been stated in the Writ Petition to
enable this Court to infer even prima facie any kind of
corruption or malpractice in the conduct of the Festival.
Additional 5th respondent produced Ext.R5(a) and R5(b), copies
of the audit report with respect to Vrischikolsavam Festival 2018
and 2019. The petitioner did not point out any specific instance
of incorrect accounting or malpractice. From what has been
stated above it is quite clear the intention of the petitioner is
nothing but mudslinging the authorities of the Cochin
Devaswom Board and the reason is his personal vendetta.
25. In Kusum Lata v. Union of India [(2006) 6 SCC
180] the Apex Court held that when there is material to show
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but
a camouflage to foster personal disputes, that petition should be
dismissed by the Court. If such petitions are not properly
regulated and abuse averted, it becomes a tool in unscrupulous
hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance as well.
26. We stated above that the investigation is sought by
the petitioner without any basis and bona fides. Viewed in the
light of the observations in the aforementioned decision, the
relief of investigation claimed by the petitioner amounts to
abuse of the process of this Court. Therefore the second relief
is liable only to be declined.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the
following terms:
1) Ext.P7 is set aside;
2) the requests of the petitioner for getting information
relating to the income and expenditure of
Vrischikolsavam Festival 2018 and 2019 are not required
to be entertained; and
3) the writ petition as regards the relief of directing the 1 st
respondent to investigate into the alleged corrupt
practices and financial irregularities pertaining to
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
Vrischikolsavam, 2018 at Poornathrayeesa Temple,
Tripunithura, is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8536/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 27.8.2019
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RTI
FROM THE PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 17.12.2018
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM 3RD
RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER DATED
8.10.2019
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
20.9.2019
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
10.12.2019 TO EXT.P4
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
11.10.2019 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE
4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER OF 4TH
RESPONDENT 31.1.2020 IN CP
214(50/19/SIC (FILE NO 5159/SIC-47/19)
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED
2/12/2015 ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT
PAGES OF THE BYELAW ON FORMATION OF
TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED
15/10/2018 IN C.P 154(4) 2018/SIC.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29/5/2018 IN
AP/1277(1) 2017/SIC.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM THE
APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ASSISTANT
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
COMMISSIONER (R4 IN WPC) DATED
16/11/2020.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM 3RD
RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
27/7/2021
EXHIBIT P11(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED
17/9/2020 APPLICATION DATED 17.9.2020
FROM PETITIONER TO THE PUBLICATION
INFORMATION OFFICER (R3
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RTI
DATED 2.1.2021 TO PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER (R3)
EXHIBIT P12(A) TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO THE EXT P12, NO
PROPER ANSWER IS GIVES ON ANACHAMAYAM
TENDER.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
05.04.2022 IN AP.2079(5)SIC FILE
NO.13149/SIC-G7/2020.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.03.2019
IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.13926 OF
2018 PASSED BY THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2020
IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.30386 OF
2019 PASSED BY THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/10/19
SUBMITTED BY THE ADDITIONAL 5TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO C-5/2018,
DATED 31/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY
W.P.(C) No.8536 of 2020
THE PETITIONER DATED 20/11/2019 BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO C-5/2018
DATED 30/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE ADDITIONAL 5TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R3(G) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO C-5/2019,
DATED 14/12/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R3(H) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO 13149/SIC-
G7/2020 DATED 7/3/22 BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R3(I) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO C-5/2019,
DATED 26/3/22 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE CYRIC AND ASSOCIATES
CHARTED ACCOUNTANT, KOCHI DATED
17.12.2019
EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS
ACCOUNTS AUDITED BY THE CYRIAC AND
ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT,
KOCHI, DATED 18.09.2020.
