A writ petition cannot compel legislative action; delay and laches undermine claims under Article 226, reinforcing that judicial review is not a means to legislate.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of November, 2021 S. MANIKUMAR, CJ 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