Kerala High Court
B.B.Shanavas vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2022
W.P.(C) No.21224/2022 :1:
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 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 21224 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 B.B.SHANAVAS
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.BHASKARAN, R/O BHASKARA MANDIRAM, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM
DIST., KERALA - 691 305.
2 ARJUN K.
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O.KUNJU PANICKJER, R/O PUTHENVEEDU, KURUVIKKONAM,
ANCHAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA - 691 333.
BY ADVS.
SHAKTHI PRAKASH
PRATHEEK VISWANATHAN
K.DHRUV KUMAR
HARIKRISHNAN M.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001.
2 REGISTRAR (DISTRICT JUDICIARY)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
SRI.P.A.HAREESH, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.21224/2022 :2:
S. MANIKUMAR, CJ & SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 21224 of 2022
W.P.(C) No.21224/2022 :3:
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022.
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by two advocates
practising before the courts at Punalur in Kollam District.
2. The prime relief sought for by the petitioners is for a direction
to the Registrar of this Court, 2 nd respondent, to consider Ext. P2
representation submitted by them expeditiously and within a time
frame to be fixed by this Court.
3. Further directions are also sought for to the respondents i.e.,
the State and the Registrar, not to take any steps in furtherance of
establishing the Family Court sanctioned for Punalur, in the premises of
the Punalur Court complex in Chemmanthoor and also to take steps to
identify a suitable location and premises with the requisite
infrastructure for the establishment of the Family Court sanctioned for
Punalur, so as to meet the objects for which the Family Courts are
required to be established.
4. The case projected by the petitioners is that the proposed
establishments in the building in question are not in the best interest
of the litigants and to have an adverse effect on them. According to
the petitioners, as per Section 3 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the
State Government, in consultation with the High Court, is mandated to
establish a family Court for every area in the State comprising a city or
town whose population exceeds one million. The State is also
empowered under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, 1984 to establish the
Family Court for such other areas in the State as it may deem
necessary.
5. Facts leading to the issue raised by the petitioners are as
follows:
A requirement arose for the establishment of additional Family
Courts in the State and the Registrar of this Court, respondent No.2,
submitted a letter dated 27.02.2020 to the State Government
proposing establishment of 7 Family Courts in the State, including the
one at Punalur. The State Government granted in principle sanction
for the establishment of 5 Family Courts, including the one proposed at
Punalur, as per a Government Order dated 11.02.2021.
6. The contention put forth by the petitioners is that the
respondents are taking hasty steps to establish the Punalur Family
Court in the newly constructed Chemmanthoor Court complex, which is
situated at a remote location of 2 kms. away from the Punalur town.
According to the petitioners, as the said complex is already congested
and no other space is available, the Conference Hall on the third floor
in the said complex is planned to be converted as a Family Court.
7. That apart, it is submitted that the Family Court should not
run in makeshift arrangements with insufficient infrastructure and
therefore, it is the duty of the respondents to ensure that adequate
facilities and infrastructure are provided for the proper functioning of
the Family Court. It was accordingly that the petitioners have
submitted Ext. P2 representation dated 21.05.2022 to the Registrar of
this Court, 2nd respondent, pointing out that the old court complex is
located at the heart of the town and by making suitable modifications
and repair, the whole court complex can be used, especially due to the
fact that they are lying vacant consequent to the opening of the new
court complex.
8. Today, when the matter came up for admission, we sought a
report from the Registrar of this Court, who has reported that at
present there is no Family Court in Punalur and it was taking note of
the requirement of establishment of the Family Court in Punalur, in
terms of the objectives of the Act, 1984 that the Government, in
continuation of the in principle sanction, has issued Government Order
bearing No. G.O. (Ms.) No. 79/200/HOME dated 13.04.2022 according
sanction for establishing Family Courts including one at Punalur.
9. It is also stated that, in the new court complex at Punalur,
there is enough space to accommodate the Family Court. It is further
stated that at present, the Judge, Family Court, Kottarakkara is
conducting camp sitting at Punalur every Saturday in the MACT Court
Hall, Punalur, which is in the new court complex, since MACT, Punalur
conducts camp sitting on that day at Kottarakkara. Government Order
in that regard is also attached along with the report and the same
reads thus:
"GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Abstract
Home Department Judiciary Family Courts Creation of Post sanction
accorded Orders issued.
--
HOME (C) DEPARTMENT
G.0.(Ms)No.79/2022/HOME Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 13042022
--
Read: 1 G.O(Ms)No.38/2021/Home Dated 11.02.2021
2 G.O.(Ms)No. 156/2021/Home Dated 23.09.2021
3 Letter No.D7(B)24794/2015 dated 06/10/2021 from the
Registrar (District Judiciary), High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.
ORDER
Government, have accorded in principle sanction for establishing
Family Courts at Kunnamkulam, Neyyatinkara, Adoor, Punalur, Paravur
(Kollam) Aluva and North Paravur(Ernakulam) as per orders read above,
subject to the condition that necessary posts will be sanctioned as and
when the courts are commenced.
2) The Registrar, High Court as per letter read above has
requested for creation of sufficient posts with a staff pattern consisting of
30 staff including the post of judicial officer in the newly sanctioned
family courts.
3) Government have examined the matter in detail and are
pleased to accord sanction for the creation of the following 21 posts each
for the newly sanctioned seven family courts.
Sl. No. Designation No. of posts
7 Confidential Assistant Gr. II 1
9 ClerkcumComputer Assistant 1
(By Order of Governor)
T.K. JOSE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY."
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri.
Shakthi Prakash, and perused the pleadings and material on record.
11. On a perusal of the proposal dated 27.02.2022 submitted by
this Court to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (C)
Department, we find that the same was submitted on the basis of the
letter issued by the Government to submit the proposals afresh after
fixing the priority and necessity based on the pendency of the cases
and the average time required for the disposal of each cases and to
forward the priority list in that regard. This Court has prioritized the
requirements and forwarded a proposal to the Government along with
the staff pattern required for the establishment of a Family Court.
12. It is also evident from the order dated 11.02.2021 passed
by the Government that the Government have examined the matter
in detail and accorded sanction for the establishment of the 5 Family
Courts, including the one at Punalur, subject to the condition that
necessary posts will be sanctioned as and when the courts are
commenced. It was thereafter that the Government accorded in
principle sanction as per order dated 23.09.2021 to establish the 5
Family Courts. Therefore, it can be seen that it was after taking into
account various facts and circumstances and the relevant inputs
required for the establishment of the Family Courts that the
Government has ultimately granted sanction. The Registrar has
reported that there is sufficient space in the new court complex to
establish and conduct the Family Court with sufficient infrastructure.
13. The grievance highlighted by the petitioners in the writ
petition is that the new court complex is situated 2 kms. away in a
remote area. We do not think that a distance of 2 kms. from the old
court complex cannot be said to be a distant place and the same can
never be considered as a long distance, especially due to the fact that
it is very difficult to secure land within the Punalur town in order to
establish a court complex.
14. Taking into account the infrastructure and other statutory
requirements for establishment of a family court, the parking facility
for vehicles of the lawyers and the litigants etc; the relevance of the
establishment of the Family Court in order to tide over the present
adverse situation due to the pendency of numerous cases in the
Kottarakkara Family Court; if and when the Family Court is established
at Punalur, the cases can be transferred from the Family Court
Kottarakkara and other courts, and thereby reduction of the large
pendency of the cases and thus, to protect the public interest, the
destination identified for functioning of the court at the present
location cannot be said to be bad, illegal or arbitrary justifying
interference of this Court. In our view, the reliefs sought for by the
petitioners are against the public interest.
15. Thus, taking into account various facts and circumstances
deliberated above, we do not think that the petitioners have
established any public interest in the matter, which requires to be
adjudicated after securing counter affidavits from the respondents,
which course, if adopted by us, would again delay the establishment of
the court in new court complex at Punalur.
Upshot of the above discussion is that, the writ petition fails and
accordingly, it is dismissed.
sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,
JUDGE.
Rv
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21224/2022
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.79/2022/HOME DATED
13/04/2022.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
20/06/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
PS To Judge.
rv
