Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27327
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
J.CHELAMESWAR, CJ, J, P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
BABU JOSEPH PUTHANANGADI – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 24436/2011
Public Interest Litigations must demonstrate immediacy and bonafide intent; delays and lack of key evidence can lead to dismissal.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - Tsunami Funds Mismanagement - Act Section List - The court examined the procedural and substantive aspects of Public Interest Litigation concerning the misutilization of tsunami funds and established guidelines for timely action and bonafide filing in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed alleging misutilization of tsunami relief funds by the Kerala government, demanding action based on an inquiry report. The petition pointed out discrepancies in fund allocation and use, specifically concerning contributions meant for tsunami relief that were allegedly diverted.
Issues: Whether the writ petition constitutes a bonafide Public Interest Litigation seeking action against the alleged misutilization of tsunami funds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for prompt action in Public Interest Litigations and clarified that delays and the absence of substantial evidence undermine the credibility of such petitions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
J.Chelameswar, C.J.
The writ petition is filed as Public Interest Litigation by a party-in-person. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:
“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to hand over the investigation of the case registered by the Vigilance Department pursuant to the submission of Dr.Vijayannunni Commission Report with regard to misutilisation and misappropriation and diversion of tsunami funds, to the 7th respondent or any other national agency as directed by this Hon'ble Court.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to take immediate action based on Dr.Vijayannunni's Commission Report and initiate appropriate proceedings against those persons in the bureaucracy responsible for the misutilisation and misappropriation and diversion of tsunami funds.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 8th respondent from interfering with the investigation process with regard to the findings of Dr.Vijayannunni Commission regarding misutilisation and misappropriation and diversion of tsunami funds.
d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 8th respondent to keep away from all General administrative functions, until his name is absolved and he is exonerated from the enquiry ordered based on the findings of the Lokayuktha and the findings of Dr.Vijayannunni Commission regarding misutilisation and misappropriation and diversion of tsunami funds.
e) Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court.”
2. The factual background from which the writ petition arises is as follows. A natural calamity now notoriously known as “Tsunami” occurred in the month of December 2004, which resulted in a heavy loss of life and also destruction of property not only in this country but also in various other countries. To meet the challenge caused by such disaster, various measures were taken both by the concerned State Governments and also the Government of India.
3. It is alleged in the writ petition that in so far as the State of Kerala is concerned, a decision was taken to constitute a fund called the 'Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund' and an appeal was made to the general public to liberally contribute to the fund to enable the State to take steps for the alleviation of the misery resulting from the natural calamity. It is averred in the writ petition that the State of Kerala issued an order, G.O. (Rt) No. 3493/2005/DMD dated 17.06.2005. Unfortunately a copy of the Government Order is not placed on record, but the relevant averment made in the writ petition is as follows:
“The State Government woke up only on 17.06.2005 and thereafter issued a notification bearing No.GO(Rt) No.3493/05/DMD dated 17.06.2005 prohibiting receipt of amounts under the caption of tsunami rehabilitation. Though the notification was dated 17.06.2005, the cut off date for receipt of the contribution was declared with effect from 21.06.2005 and contributions were received after the date of notification by the State Government in the name of tsunami rehabilitation. It is respectfully pointed out this is done with an ulterior motive.”
4. It is further averred in paragraph 6 of the writ petition as follows:
“6. It s further pointed out that until 26.12.2004 the reserve fund that was present in the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund was Rs.26 lakhs. However, after the request for contribution for tsunami relief was made, the contribution soared up to Rs.40 crores, which itself is an indication that the funds that were receive by the State Government was for the specific purpose of tsunami rehabilitation.”
5. It is further stated by the petitioner that during the abovementioned period when the funds were received, the 8th respondent herein was the Chief Minister of the State of Kerala, with a further allegation that the funds s
