MALAPPURAM POURA SAMITHI Vs. PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows:

(2.) WE are only constrained to place it on record that we are of the opinion that the instant writ petition is sheer abuse of the process of the public interest litigation, apart from the fact that there is an utter lack of diligence which is expected in drafting the petition. WE make it clear that even after spending considerable amount of time in reading each line of the pleadings, we are unable to know what exactly is the legal frame of the pleadings. The language of the pleading is not only inelegant but also imprecise and the contents incoherent. A hazy picture emerging from the pleadings and submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner 'Samithi' is complaining against the decision of the respondents to construct a new bus stand within the area of Perinthalmanna town. The petitioner made vague averments regarding the conversion of 'certain' paddy land belonging to 'certain persons' who are not made parties to the writ petition. In order to demonstrate the vagueness of the pleadings we extract paragraph 4 of the pleadings.