Point of Law: Court can, in an appropriate matter and on the basis of pleadings and factual matrix before it, issue appropriate guidelines/directions to elucidate, add and improve upon the directions issued.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Before we proceed with the facts of the case, party-in-person viz., Sangeeth Thomas submitted that the he is doing C.A. final year.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder: Petitioner is working as Chief Accountant in Lulu International Shopping Malls Limited, Trivandrum, Funtura Division and continuing his CA Final Studies along with the Job. Petitioner stated that based on the disasters that are happening in Kerala for the last 5 years (like Floods in 2018 to 2020 and formation of various cyclones in Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea), he, as a citizen of India, relying upon the Hindu news report in relation to 6th Assessment report of Intergovernmental panel on climate change dated 18.6.2022 and relevant extracts from Global Food Policy Report -2022, produced as Exhibits P1 and P2 respectively, proposes to enlighten some immediate actions to be taken by the State Government in handling the climate change with the minimal support of general public using tactical ways,. Hence, he filed the writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:

(i) To issue a writ, direction, or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to make necessary changes in the relevant rules to devote a day for planting trees alone for celebrating like a festival with the conjoint support of public and government by making all the required campaigns and publicity to promote that day to get the desired result of eliminating climate change.

(ii) To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to amend Section 3 of The Kerala Industrial Establishment (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 by specifically mentioning the granting of Festival Holiday WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF PLANTING TREES.

(iii) To issue a writ, direction, or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to make campaign to make aware the public about the importance of that day and its impact on their children life and encourage them to celebrate the day by giving even more plant seeds through Krishi Bhavan, Horticultures and VFPC-K.

3. Instant writ petition is filed on the basis of newspaper reports published in Hindu daily on 18.6.2022 and certain texts dealing with climate changes has also been enclosed.

4. We have heard Mr. Sangeeth Thomas, party-in-person, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Tek Chand, and perused the pleadings and material on record.

5. First of all, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court, in a catena of decisions, held that public interest writ petition is not maintainable purely based on newspaper reports. That apart, the court has no power to issue any mandamus to the Government or legislature to make amendments as prayed for in the writ petition. On the aspect of entertaining a writ petition, based on news item, reference can be made to a few of the decisions, which are reproduced hereunder:

(i) In Laxmi Raj Shetty and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1988) 3 SCC 319], at paragraphs 25 and 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"25. ............ We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspapers is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspapers report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein.

26. It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspapers is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The accused should have therefore produced the persons in whose presence the seizure of the stolen money from Appellant 2's house at Mangalore was effected or