Back
'Publicity Interest' Over Public Good: Orissa HC Axes Third PIL to Rename Cuttack as 'Katak', Slaps Rs 10K Fine
In a sharp rebuke to serial litigants chasing headlines, the dismissed a demanding the city of Cuttack be officially renamed "Katak." A division bench led by Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman not only threw out the plea but imposed Rs 10,000 costs on petitioner Srujeet Khuntia, directing the amount to the 's Juvenile Justice Fund for children's welfare.
A Persistent Campaign Born from a Government Notice
The saga began when the Additional Secretary, , issued a public notice (Annexure-9) proposing corrected spellings for various Odisha place names. Inspired—or emboldened—by this, Khuntia filed his third writ petition under Article 226, framing it as a PIL to "restore" Cuttack's historical spelling as "Katak."
This wasn't his first rodeo. Earlier petitions met similar fates: the first nudged him to approach the government directly, while the second was dismissed outright for lacking any public interest element. Undeterred, Khuntia returned, arguing the government's selective corrections overlooked Cuttack's "original" spelling seen in educational certificates from reputed universities and colleges.
The core legal question: Can courts under Article 226 mandate governmental decisions on place name spellings, especially in repeated PILs devoid of enforceable public rights?
Petitioner's Passion vs. State's Silence on Policy
Khuntia's counsel, , passionately cited historical documents, including Education Department certificates and university records spelling the city as "Katak." He urged the court to direct the government to align with this "authentic" version, mirroring corrections for other places.
The state, represented by , maintained silence on merits but implicitly defended executive prerogative. The bench noted the government's conscious policy domain in such matters, as evidenced by the public notice correcting other spellings.
Courts Draw a Line: No Judicial Overreach into Executive Turf
The bench firmly invoked the doctrine of , emphasizing that place-naming decisions fall squarely in the government's lap—not the judiciary's. Quoting prior rulings in the petitioner's own cases, it refused to entertain what it termed "fancy litigation" aimed at popularity rather than public welfare.
No precedents were explicitly cited beyond the petitioner's dismissed prior PILs, but the court reinforced principles of in PILs: litigants can't repeatedly file on identical issues without new constitutional rights emerging. It distinguished genuine public interest from "publicity interest," frowning on attempts to sway judicial opinion through persistence.
Media reports echoed this, labeling the PIL a
"sinister motive to gain popularity,"
aligning seamlessly with the judgment's critique.
Key Observations from the Bench
"The Court should not extend its powers enshrined under in dealing with all such cases which is within the exclusive domain of the Government nor the Court should use the power conferred upon the Executives/Bureaucrats taking shelter under the aforesaid provision."
"A litigant cannot be permitted to approach the Court raising the same issue(s) and/or concern which has already been decided by the Court unless it invites a recognized right within the parameters of the Constitution."
"It is one of such examples of publicity interest litigation than having a serious concern over the interest of public. The Court must frown upon such fancy litigation which has a sinister motive of gaining the popularity without having any element of a public interest in it."
"The certainty and uniformity in law is the hallmark of dispensation of justice."
Final Verdict: Dismissed with Costs, A Warning to Wannabe Activists
"We do not find that the Court can entertain such a public interest litigation, more particularly, when an earlier round of litigation could not yield any fruitful result,"
the bench ruled on
. The PIL was dismissed with
Rs 10,000 costs
, payable within two weeks to the for juvenile welfare. Non-payment invites recovery as per law.
This ruling sends a clear message: Courts won't entertain vexatious, repetitive PILs masquerading as public service. It safeguards executive policy space while deterring "publicity-driven" filings, potentially raising the bar for PIL maintainability in trivial matters across India. For Odisha, Cuttack's spelling stays—officialdom unchanged.
