Kerala High Court
Renjith Krishnan. R vs State Of Kerala on 26 August, 2025
2025:KER:64978
W.P.(C)No. 28667 of 2024 -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 4TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 28667 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
RENJITH KRISHNAN R.
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, MANATHANAM
VADAKKEKOOTTACHIRA HOUSE, THYCATTUSSERY P. O,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688528
BY ADVS.
SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR
SHRI.SANDEEP P JOHNSON
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
O/O. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688013
3 TAHASIDAR (LAND RECORD)
CHERTHALA TALUK RECORD, CHERTHALA
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688524
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
THANNERMUKKOM NORTH VILLAGE OFFICE, CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688527
2025:KER:64978
W.P.(C)No. 28667 of 2024 -:2:-
5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MUHAMMA POLICE STATION, MUHAMMA P.O,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688525
6 BIJU @ CHAKO JOSEPH
S/O. JOSEPH PANAGHADTHARAYIL, THANEERMUKKOM P. O,
THANEERMUKKOM VADAKU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688527
7 ANILKUMAR
S/O. SURENDRAN CHEERAN KUNNEL VEETIL,
CHERTHALA SOUTH P. O, CHERTHALA TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688539
BY ADVS.
SRI.S. RENJITH-SPL.GP
SHRI.B.PRAMOD
SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.ATHUL M.V.
SHRI.AJAY S. KOSHY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.08.2025, THE COURT ON 26.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:64978
W.P.(C)No. 28667 of 2024 -:3:-
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2025
Nitin Jamdar, C.J.
The Petitioner seeks action against two individuals, Respondent
Nos. 6 and 7. The Petitioner also seeks a direction to the statutory
Authorities to conduct an enquiry in respect of the property comprised in
Re-survey No. 302/2 in Block No. 24 in Thanneermukkam Vadakku
Village, which, according to the Petitioner, is a wetland, and Respondent
No. 6 is filling it up contrary to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land
and Wetland Act, 2008.
2. In the Petition, all that the Petitioner discloses about himself is that
he is a citizen of India and permanently residing at the address given in
the petition. The Petitioner states on oath that he has no personal or
private interest in the matter. Respondent No. 7 has filed an affidavit
raising a serious grievance that the Petitioner has a personal grudge
against Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, which he masquerades as public
interest. Respondent No. 7 asserts that the Petitioner is a real estate
broker who brokered the sale of the very same property by Respondent
No. 6 to Respondent No. 7, and he received ₹50,000/- from Respondent
No. 6. Respondent No. 7 also paid him ₹15,000/-. The Petitioner started
demanding more money from Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, and since they
refused, he resorted to file this petition. Respondent No. 7 has denied any
illegal activities and has stated that the stop memo issued by Respondent
No. 4 was challenged by Respondent No. 6, and that the operation of the
2025:KER:64978
said memo was stayed in W.P.(C) No.8020 of 2023 by the learned Single
Judge on 17 March 2023, a fact that has also been suppressed by the
Petitioner. A memo has been filed by the Government Pleader annexing
the report of the Inspector of Police, which states that, as per the enquiry
conducted, there are several civil cases pending against the Petitioner and
a warrant is pending in a criminal case. The Petitioner states that there is
no criminal case pending, and some of them are only proceedings under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. We have examined the record, including the documentary evidence
regarding the transfer of money to the Petitioner placed on record by
Respondent No. 7. The Petitioner has suppressed the fact that he was a
broker between Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for the transaction and has
received remuneration for the sale of the same property. The case of
Respondent No. 7 that the Petitioner filed this petition only when his
demand for more money was not met, has to be believed. Further, the
pendency of W.P.(C) No.8020 of 2023, challenging the stop memo
issued to Respondent No. 6, and the interim order of the learned Single
Judge dated 17 March 2023 are also not disclosed. This Petition thus, is
a clear instance of misuse of the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction,
where proceedings have been initiated to pursue personal motive under
the guise of public interest.
4. No person can claim, as of right, that he has to be treated as a public
interest litigant. To maintain the purity of this jurisdiction, the Court has
2025:KER:64978
to satisfy itself regarding the credentials of the petitioner and guard
against its misuse for oblique motives. Rigorous scrutiny and deterrent
action are, therefore, required to ensure that unscrupulous elements do
not sully the Court process. This warning has been sounded and
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. In the case
of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal 1, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, after taking note of the malady of abuse of PIL jurisdiction,
observed as under:
"14. The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of
the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of
information given by him; and (c) the information being not
vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity
and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance
between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be
allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations
besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of
public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to
assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In
such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It
has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of
redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the
sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the
legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with
imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers
impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade
as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of
pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public
or even of their own to protect.
15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and
prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the
1 (2004) 3 SCC 349
2025:KER:64978
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
[(1994) 2 SCC 481] and A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. Gar
Re-Rolling Mills. [(1994) 2 SCC 647]. 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
Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr) v. K. Parasaran. [(1996) 5 SCC
530]. 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.
16. 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 a large number of so-called public interest
litigations where even a minuscule percentage can
legitimately be called public interest litigations. Though the
parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated
by this Court in a 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. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra
Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273], this Court held that in
service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of
so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated
in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the
High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of
the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the
PILs, official documents are being annexed without even
indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In
one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given
as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on
2025:KER:64978
the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it,
he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such
frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the courts
should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to
impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the courts
to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with
costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right
direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have
the approval of the courts.
***
18. In Gupta case [1981 Supp SCC 87] it was emphatically
pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in
the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or
meddlesome interloper to approach the court under the
guise of a public interest litigant. It has also left the following
note of caution: (SCC p. 219, para 24)
"24. But we must be careful to see that the member
of the public, who approaches the court in cases of
this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal
gain or private profit or political motivation or
other oblique consideration. The court must not
allow its process to be abused by politicians and
others to delay legitimate administrative action or
to gain a political objective."
19. In State of H.P. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical
College [(1985) 3 SCC 169], it has been said that public
interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great
care and circumspection.
20. Khalid, J. in his separate supplementing judgment in
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. [(1987) 2 SCC 295]
(SCC at p. 331) said:
"Today public-spirited litigants rush to courts to
file cases in profusion under this attractive name.
They must inspire confidence in courts and
2025:KER:64978
among the public. They must be above suspicion.
(SCC p. 331, para 46)
* * *
Public interest litigation has now come to stay.
But one is led to think that it poses a threat to
courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed
without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore,
necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to
outline the correct parameters for entertainment
of such petitions. If courts do not restrict the free
flow of such cases in the name of public interest
litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and
the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice,
will have to take upon themselves administrative
and executive functions. (SCC p. 334, para 59)
* * *
I will be second to none in extending help when
such help is required. But this does not mean that
the doors of this Court are always open for
anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some
self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants.
(SCC p. 335, para 61)"
xxxxx
xxxxx
26. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar [(1991) 1 SCC 598],
it was observed as follows: (SCC pp. 604-05, para 7)
"Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or
body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and
enmity. If such petitions under Article 32 are entertained, it
would amount to abuse of process of the court, preventing
speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court.
Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of
2025:KER:64978
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of
a public interest litigation. Public interest litigation
contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or
enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or
community which are not able to enforce their fundamental
rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of
law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 32 must approach this Court for the vindication of
the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the
purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is
the duty of this Court to discourage such petitions and to
ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted
by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court for personal matters under the garb
of the public interest litigation."
*** (emphasis supplied)
5. In the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and
Others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed anguish on the misuse of
the forum of the Court under the garb of public interest litigation and
observed as under:
"12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be
used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary
has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful
veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested
interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be
used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for
delivering social justice to citizens. ......The court must
not allow its process to be abused for oblique
considerations ......"
*** (emphasis supplied)
2 (2005) 1 SCC 590
2025:KER:64978
6. In the case of Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India and Others 3, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"39. Every litigant, who approaches the Court, owes a duty to
approach the Court with clean hands and disclose complete
facts. A petition which lacks bona fides and is intended to
settle business rivalry or is aimed at taking over of a company
or augmenting the business of another interested company at
the cost of closing business of other units in the garb of PIL
would be nothing but abuse of the process of law.
***
41. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. [(2004) 3 SCC
349], this Court took a cautious approach while entertaining
public interest litigations and held that public interest
litigation is a weapon, which has to be used with great care and
circumspection. The judiciary has to be extremely careful to
see that no ugly private malice, vested interest and/or seeking
publicity lurks behind the beautiful veil of public interest. It is
to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for
delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name
of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious
products of mischief.
42. In Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'Lalan' (8) v. Union of India
[(2006) 6 SCC 613], this Court reiterated the principle and
even held that howsoever genuine a case brought before a
court by a public interest litigant may be, the court has to
decline its examination at the behest of a person who, in fact,
is not a public interest litigant and whose bona fides and
credentials are in doubt; no trust can be placed by the court on
a mala fide applicant in a public interest litigation.
43. The courts, while exercising jurisdiction and deciding a
public interest litigation, have to take great care, primarily, for
3 (2011) 3 SCC 287
2025:KER:64978
the reason that wide jurisdiction should not become a source
of abuse of process of law by the disgruntled litigant. Such
careful exercise is also necessary to ensure that the litigation is
genuine, not motivated by extraneous considerations and
imposes an obligation upon the litigant to disclose true facts
and approach the Court with clean hands. Thus, it is
imperative that the petitions, which are bona fide and in
public interest alone, be entertained in this category. Abuse of
process of law is essentially opposed to any public interest.
One who abuses the process of law, cannot be said to serve any
public interest, much less, a larger public interest. In the name
of the poor let the rich litigant not achieve their end of
becoming richer by instituting such set of petitions to ban
such activities.
44. Besides the fact that the present petition lacks bona fides,
it is also obvious that the petitioner though had prayed for
complete ban on all mining and manufacturing activities but
had hardly made any study or prepared statistical data in that
regard. It only made reference to certain studies in foreign
countries. The petitioner, claiming to be an organisation
involved in the good of the common man, ought to have taken
greater pains to state essential facts supported by documents in
relation to Indian environment.
*** (emphasis supplied)
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v.
Balwant Singh Chaufal4, in the year 2010, has laid down certain
guidelines and emphasised the need for properly formulated rules,
observing that it would be appropriate for each High Court to establish
rules that encourage genuine PILs while discouraging those filed with
4 (2010) 3 SCC 402
2025:KER:64978
oblique motives. The guidelines laid down are as under:
"181. We have carefully considered the facts of the
present case. We have also examined the law declared by
this Court and other courts in a number of judgments. In
order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has
become imperative to issue the following directions:
(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL
and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for
extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own
procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it
would be appropriate for each High Court to properly
formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and
discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.
Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have
not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within
three months. The Registrar General of each High Court
is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by
the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this
Court immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of
the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding
the correctness of the contents of the petition before
entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial
public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which
involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must
be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure
2025:KER:64978
that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm
or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is
no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind
filing the public interest litigation.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed
by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be
discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting
similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the
petitions filed for extraneous considerations.
*** (emphasis supplied)
Thus, one way to ensure that PIL jurisdiction is invoked properly is by
having appropriate rules and regulations in place. The Rules of the High
Court of Kerala, 1971 (Rules of 1971) regulate the filing of Public
Interest Litigations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised that
petitions filed for ulterior motives have to be discouraged by imposing
exemplary costs.
8. In practice, however, it is noticed, as in the present case, that
petitioners often merely recite the language of the Rule in their affidavits
by stating in one line that they have no personal interest. It is only when
the Respondents point out the private interest that the Court considers
dismissal or recourse to Rule 146B of the Rules of 1971. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has expressed concern that Courts, being unmindful of a
litigant's true intention, often spend valuable judicial time that could
otherwise be devoted to genuine cases, and that such petitions should be
disposed of at the threshold. Keeping this principle in mind, we have
2025:KER:64978
been directing the petitioners to file additional affidavits disclosing full
credentials, background, and other relevant particulars. However, it
would be appropriate if the full credentials of the petitioners are disclosed
by way of a detailed affidavit at the time of filing of the petition. Also,
many PILs filed to address social issues contain no particulars, offering no
substantial assistance to the Court. Petitions are often filed on complex
technical matters where the petitioners have no expertise. Such poorly
presented petitions are detrimental to the very cause they seek to espouse.
Judicial time is not infinite and cannot be squandered by such petitions.
In our view, the present Rules of 1971 may require a mandate to
elaborate on the disclosures to be made in the affidavit accompanying a
PIL from which the status of the public interest litigant can be ascertained
at the threshold.
9. In the case at hand, the Petitioner has abused the process of law and
has suppressed his personal interest in the matter. A stop memo was
issued to Respondent No. 6, and it is now the subject matter of challenge
in W.P.(C) No.8020 of 2023, and an interim order is granted by the
learned Single Judge on 17 March 2023. It is, therefore, necessary not
only to dismiss the petition, but also to follow the regime under Rule
146B of the Rules of 1971, and impose costs upon the Petitioner. The
object of Rule 146B is not to stifle genuine Public Interest Litigations, but
to prevent the abuse of this jurisdiction by unscrupulous petitioners. It is
to keep this jurisdiction robust that such petitioners have to be strictly
dealt with.
2025:KER:64978
10. The Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of ₹25,000/-. The
Petitioner is directed to pay the sum of ₹25,000/- to the Legal Aid Fund
under the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within a period of eight
weeks and file a receipt of payment in the Registry.
11. If the amount is not so deposited by the Petitioner, upon informing
so by the Registry, the District Collector, Alappuzha, will recover the
same as arrears of land revenue from the Petitioner and deposit the same
in the Legal Aid Fund of the High Court Legal Services Committee and
place a report to the Registry for the purpose of record.
Sd/-
Nitin Jamdar,
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Basant Balaji,
Judge
vpv & krj
2025:KER:64978
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28667/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 07.02.2023
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P1 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION APPLICATION
DATED 31.01.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGE
CARD.
Exhibit P2 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION APPLICATION
DATED 31.01.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGE
CARD.
Exhibit P3 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.02.2024 ISSUED
BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.02.2024 ISSUED
BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION DATED
29.02.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.
Exhibit P6 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 12.03.2024 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P7 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 13.03.2024 WITH
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P8
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION DATED
13.03.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3TH RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD
Exhibit P9 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P9
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DATED 27.03.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P10 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P10.
2025:KER:64978
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R7(a) A true copy of the screenshort of the
transaction effected vide interbank transfer
showing the transfer of Rs. 50,000/- by the
6th respondent to the petitioner
Exhibit R7(b) A true copy of the tax receipt dated
04.04.2024 showing payment of basic/land tax
during respect of property
Exhibit R7(c) A true copy of the interim order dated
17.03.2023 by the W.P.(C) No. 8020/2023
