A writ petition must contain proper pleadings and evidence; relief cannot be granted on unpleaded grounds.

JUDGMENT

Harisankar V . Menon, J.

This writ appeal is instituted by the petitioners in W.P .(C)No.14550 of 2022 before this Court. By the impugned judgment dated 25.05.2022, a learned Single Judge has found that the writ petition is bereft of relevant particulars and has, therefore, dismissed the same with liberty to file a fresh writ petition with better particulars.

2. The 1 st petitioner in the writ petition is a society, which is running a school and the 2 nd petitioner is its principal. The petitioners have filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P1 Government Order by which recognition for classes VIII to X has been granted to the 5 th respondent therein. In the writ petition, the petitioners have relied upon Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules (for short ‘KER’) to contend that there was no proper consideration of the prescribed criteria, while issuing Ext.P1 order.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent herein.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that Ext.P1 challenged in the writ petition cannot be sustained for the reasons stated in the writ petition and also on account of various documents produced along with the reply affidavit.

5. However, we notice that, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the writ petition is one without proper pleadings and necessary records. On a perusal of the writ petition, apart from producing Ext.P1 and relying on Chapter V and the Rules made thereunder, no relevant data have been produced or relied on by the petitioner. Counter affidavits have been filed in the writ appeal by the Government and by the 5 th respondent herein. A reply affidavit is filed by the appellants to the counter affidavit filed by the 5 th respondent herein. But pleadings are bereft in the writ petition.

6. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that, 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. The Apex Court held further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., 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 to be pleaded and annexed to it.

7. In M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [(1998) 4 SCC 387] , the Apex Court was dealing with a case arising out of the proceedings initiated for the acquisition of land for M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Apex Court noticed that, in the absence of any allegation that Rule 3 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 had not been complied and there being no particulars in respect of non compliance of Rule 4 also, it is difficult to see as to how the High Court could have reached the finding that statutory requirements contained in these Rules were not fulfilled before issuance of notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. High Court did not give any reason as to how it reached the conclusion that Rules 3 and 4 had not been complied in the face of the record of the case. Rather, it returned a finding which is unsustainable that it was "not possible on the basis of the material on record to hold that there was compliance with Rules 3