IMPORTANT POINTS
Public Interest Litigation which was initially created as a useful judicial tool to help the poor and weaker section of society who could not afford to come to courts, has, in course of time, largely developed into an uncontrollable Frankenstein and a nuisance which is threatening to choke the dockets of the superior courts obstructing the hearing of the genuine and regular cases which have been waiting to be taken up for years together.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Petitioner herein Mythri Residents Association, Tripunithura has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing first respondent to stop the illegal construction in the wet land of Polakkulam in East Fort, Tripunithura.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or direction or order directing the second respondent to restore the converted wet land of Polakkulam in East Fort, Tripunithura and the necessary charges has to be levied from the 1st respondent.

(iii) issue writ of mandamus, direction or order directing the 3rd respondent to inspect the polakkulam and the surrounding well water and to report the pollution affected to the surrounding inhabits and the city and further take necessary legal action against the person or body who are responsible for the said pollution.

(iv) issue writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the 4th and 5th respondents to take criminal prosecution against the 1st respondent for the violation of Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet Land Act, 2008.

(v) issue writ of certiorari, order or direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to produce the entire records regarding the conversion of Polakkulam wet land in Tripunithura Municipality and to stop the construction in the wet land.

2. The following documents are produced along with the writ petition captioned as Ext.P1, rough sketch drawn, signed by learned counsel for the petitioner and Ext.P2 photographs. Ext.P3 dated 30th September, 2016 is a request of Mr. K.V. Sabu, Advocate, High Court of Kerala addressed to the Information Officer, Tripunithura Municipality for certain queries. No other supporting document has been filed to substantiate the averments made in the writ petition.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He requests one weeks time for production of the documents.

4. In Bharat Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 1988 SC 2181, Honourable Supreme Court held that party raising the point must plead and annex to the petition not only the facts but also evidence in proof of the facts. When a point which is, ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. Para 13 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:

“13. As has been already noticed, although the point as to profiteering by the State was pleaded in the writ petitions before the High Court as an abstract point of law, there was no reference to any material in support thereof nor was the point argued at the hearing of the writ petitions. Before us also, no particulars and no facts have been given in the special leave petitions or in the writ petitions or in any affidavit, but the point has been sought to be substantiated at the time of hearing by referring to certain facts stated in the said application by HSIDC. In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter, affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have