IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P.CHALY, JJ.
Legal Literacy Council – Appellant
Versus
Kerala Union of Working Journalists – Respondent
WP(C) No. 6695 of 2018
Decided on : 16-11-2021
Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11C - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Central Excise Act, 1944 - section 11(c) - J & K Constitution, - Section 110 - Respondent granted Kerala Union of Working Journalists respondent to form 'Kerala Press Club” in New Delhi after including amount in Budget of with an object and motive of providing infrastructure for promotion and augmentation of journalistic profession and to uphold professional values morals and ethics - Said amount was sanctioned in and handed over to Secretary Kerala Union of Working Journalist, by DD On receipt of said DD office bearers of Union encased sanctioned amount and kept same in Union Bank account at Federal Bank New Delhi - Allegation is that Union has not utilised said amount for its apt purpose for which it was granted and misused t allotted fund.
Finding of the Court:
Court have no hesitation in observing that notwithstanding aforesaid directions in (supra) and principles of law laid down in State of Punjab Court can, in an appropriate matter and on basis of pleadings and factual matrix before it issue appropriate guidelines/directions to elucidate add and improve upon directions issued in and other cases when conditions stated in supra are satisfied - Court is not what is urged and prayed by applicant - Contention of Applicant is that Court must direct legislature that is Parliament to enact a suitable standalone comprehensive legislation based on UN Convention and direction if issued would be in consonance with Constitution of India - Court prayer must be rejected in light of aforesaid discussion.
Result: Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S. MANIKUMAR, J
The petitioner, Legal Literacy Council, claimed to be a registered Legal Welfare Organization, has filed the instant writ petition for a direction to State of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Chief Secretary, respondent No. 5, to take appropriate legal action against respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively, who held the office of the President, Secretary and the Treasurer of the Kerala Union of Working Journalists, New Delhi Unit, New Delhi, the first respondent for the last 5 years.
2. A further direction was sought for to enact laws to the effect that it is the duty of the State of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No. 5, to collect the unutilised public money which has not been utilised for the last six years from the date of its sanction and also for a direction to respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and 11, to collect the allotted public money with interest from respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and ensure the same.
3. Short facts leading to the writ petition are as hereunder:
State of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001, represented by its Chief Secretary, the 5th respondent, granted Rs.25 lakhs to the Kerala Union of Working Journalists, the 1st respondent, to form 'Kerala Press Club” in New Delhi, after including the amount in the Budget of 2011, with an object and motive of providing infrastructure for the promotion and augmentation of journalistic profession, and to uphold the professional values, morals and ethics. The said amount was sanctioned in the year 2012 and handed over to the Secretary, Kerala Union of Working Journalist, by DD No. 689741 dated 16.08.2012. On receipt of the said DD, office bearers of the Union encashed the sanctioned amount and kept the same in the Union Bank account at Federal Bank, Cannaught place, New Delhi. The allegation is that the Union has not utilised the said amount for its apt purpose for which it was granted and misused the allotted fund.
4. From the materials on record, we find that as early as on 15.01.2020, permission has been granted to take fresh notice to respondent Nos. 3 and 9, returnable within three weeks. Since then, steps have not been taken, and therefore, the registry had put up a note on 14.01.2020 that “service not complete with respect to respondents 2, 3 and 4”. On 13.09.2021, the registry recorded a note that 'process as per order dated 15.01.2020 not received.' Thus, it is clear that no steps were taken for serving notice on respondent No. 3 and 9. That apart, respondent No. 2 has also not been served.
5. On this day, when the matter is taken up for further hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if a week's time is given, steps would be taken for service of notice on respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 9.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions on the merits of the case as well. He further submitted that a sum of Rs.25 lakhs sanctioned by respondent No. 5 has not been properly utilised by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 4. He also submitted that even though some of the active members of KUWJ questioned the illegal action of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and also the alleged misuse of public money, there was no prompt action.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record.
8. Writ petition has been filed mainly based on the averment that a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was sanctioned in the year 2012 for providing infrastructure for the promotion and augmentation of journalistic profession and the said amount was handed over to the Secretary, Kerala Union of Working Journalist. In his attempt to get information as regards the utilisation of the fund, Exhibit-P2 application dated 07.09.2017 seemed to have been submitted to the Public Information Officer, Office of the Department of Finance, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum to get the information as hereunder:
A.K. Roy v. Union of India and Ors. [(1982) 1 SCC 271]
Asif Hameed and Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (AIR 1989 SC 1899)
Bhim Singh v. Union of India [(2010) 5 SCC 538]
Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. Mohd. Sarifuz Zaman [(2003) 12 SCC 408]
Bal Ram Bali and Anr. v. Union of India [(2007) 6 SCC 805]
Binoy Viswam v. Union of India and Ors. [(2017) 7 SCC 59]
Chandigarh Administrator and Ors. v. Manpreet Singh and Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 435]
Common Cause v. Union of India and Ors..[AIR 2016 SC 1672]
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T.Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108
Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India [AIR 1974 SC 130 : (1974) 3 SCC 554]
G.C. Gupta v. N.K. Pandey [AIR 1988 SC 654 : (1988) 1 SCC 316]
Gainda Ram and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. [(2010) 10 SCC 715]
Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347]
Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors. reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Anr.(1973) 4 SCC 225
I.R. Coelho (Dead) by L.Rs. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1
Indian Soaps and Toiletries Makers Association v. Ozair Husain and Ors. [(2013) 3 SCC 641]
Kalpana Mehta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [(2018) 7 SCC 1]
Lipton India Ltd. v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 524]
Laxmi Raj Shetty and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1988) 3 SCC 319]
Manoj Narula v. Union of India [(2014) 9 SCC 1]
M.R.Gupta v. Union of India [(1995) 5 SCC 628
Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) [(2017) 7 SCC 221]
Manoj Narula v. Union of India [(2014) 9 SCC 1]
Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1990 SC 1251)
NDMC v. Pan Singh (AIR 2007 SC 1365)
New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and Ors. [(2007) 9 SCC 278]
Prithipal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 10
P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578
P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 1974 SC 2271:(1975) 1 SCC 152]
Rusom Cavasiee Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248
Rohit Pandey v. Union of India reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702
Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. [(2018) 10 SCC 472]
Regina (Countryside Alliance) and Ors. v. Attorney General and Anr. [(2008) 1 AC 719]
Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. The State of Assam and Ors.
State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi reported in (1996) 6 SCC 445
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India and Anr. [(1989) 4 SCC 187]
State of Maharastra v. Digambar reported in AIR 1995 SC 1991
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Satpal Saini [(2017) 11 SCC 42]
State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal reported in (1986) 4 SCC 566
S.A. Khan v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another reported in (1993) 3 SCC 151: AIR 1993 SC 1348
State of Jammu & Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki and Ors. (AIR 1992 SC 1546)
S.S.Balu v. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479
Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Femandez and Ors. [(1969) 3 SCR 603]
State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006
State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1977) 3 SCC 592
State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala (2014) 12 SCC 696
State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 294
U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh [(2006) 11 SCC 464]
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (AIR 2002 SC 2112)
Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Others [(2016) 7 SCC 1]
Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja and Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 195
Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court reported in (2004) 13 SCC 485
Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal (AIR 2001 SC 2920)
Virender Chaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation reported in (2009) 1 SCC 297
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.