STATE OF KERALA Vs. BASIL ATTIPETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Review Petition is filed by the State seeking review of our judgment in W.P.(C) No. 13630/2012 dated 14.6.2012 whereunder we disposed of a public interest litigation directing the State to enforce the prohibitory orders issued banning distribution and sale of Gutkha and Panmasala after expiry of the extended time granted by the Government which was upto 15.6.2012. In fact, the Advocate General himself concedes that State has no grievance against our judgment because the direction issued was only to enforce Government's Order. However, Advocate General appearing in the Review Petition submitted that petitioners in three Writ Petitions who are manufacturers/distributors of the banned items namely, Gutkha and Panmasala represented before another Division Bench that fraud was committed by the petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation in collusion with the State in getting our judgment now sought to be reviewed without informing this Court about the pendency of the W.P.(C)s. before a Single Judge in which Government Orders directed to be enforced by us were challenged. The matter is very fresh in our mind because judgment was passed by us just two weeks back and during hearing both the State as well as the petitioner in the Writ Petition informed us that Government Order sought to be enforced in the public interest litigation was under challenge in a few Writ Petitions pending before the Single Judge. At that time we asked a specific question as to whether there is any order of stay granted by the Single Judge who was absolutely free to stay the order impugned in the Writ Petitions. We were informed that no interim order or stay was granted by the Single Judge. Further, the Government itself extended the time for compliance of the prohibitory order by three weeks from date of issuance of the prohibitory order i.e., upto 15.6.2012. It is in this context i.e., when there is no stay against prohibitory order, we directed the Government in public interest to enforce Government Order by seizure and destruction of the banned articles after expiry of the extended time granted by Government, that is after 15.6.2012. It is not very uncommon that orders impugned in several Writ Petitions or in statutory appeals are enforced during pendency of the cases and if impugned orders are enforced, it is for the court deciding the matter finally to grant consequential reliefs, if such orders are ultimately vacated and the court feels that party has suffered loss. Therefore, whenever interim orders are absolutely necessary to secure the interest of the parties challenging Government Orders, it is for them to get stay orders, failing which to approach the Appellate court. So long as there is no order of stay, nothing prohibited the Government in the first place, to enforce the orders pending the WP.(C)'s and if the Government fails to do so, it is open to a public interest litigant to approach the court for appropriate directions, no matter the order is under challenge before the Single Judge. We, therefore, issued the judgment consciously knowing well that the impugned order directed to be enforced was under challenge before the Single Judge. In fact, since the matter was pending before the Single Judge, we have not gone into the validity or otherwise of the order under challenge and direction was issued to enforce the order only because Single Judge did not grant stay. In other words, our judgment will stand as long as Single Judge does not stay or vacate the impugned order issued by the Government. In our view, no fraud or misrepresentation was committed in this Court in the Writ Petition which was disposed of by us and if at all any fraud was committed in obtaining orders from Division Bench, it is not for the Single Judge but the Division Bench which passed the judgment to consider the matter. We, therefore, dismiss the Review Petition but by clarifying the position as above.