A X VARGHESE Vs. VAYAR RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, seemingly a public-spirited journalist, has been coming to this Court frequently: this is his fourth approach within a month or so, to my knowledge. The first was for contempt of court against the Chief Minister of Kerala. The second also was for contempt, against the Home Minister and the Irrigation Minister. The third was for directing the President of India to impose President's rule in the State. Undaunted by the results, he has now come to see whether the Home Minister, the Chief Minister and the Director General of Police (respondents 1 to 3) could be prosecuted at the instance of this Court, for certain offences said to have been committed by them.

(2.) The allegations are these. The police opened fire on unsocial elements and hooligans when the Muslims of Alleppey were observing Miladi Sherief on 29th December, 1982. A protest hartal was organised the next day at Trivandrum. Fully knowing that the hooligans and unsocial elements of that city also would indulge in nefarious activities, taking advantage of the situation, the two ministers directed the police not to move a little finger for maintaining law and order. The result was that houses and huts were destroyed, bazaars set on fire, and property looted. One man was burned to death. The airport became unserviceable. Murder, arson, robbery and dacoity became the order of the day. The ministers were being kept informed about the 'holocaust' from time to time, and still they declined to lift the embargo. They later admitted that they had miscalculated the situation. The acts and omissions of respondents (1) to (3) amounted to the following offences under the Indian Penal Code:-

(3.) I take it that the petitioner's approach is bona fide, and not designed to create sensations, or to use this Court as a ploy for games which should be played outside its portals. Even so, there are limits to this Court's jurisdiction under Art.226 Mandamus goes to a person or authority for the performance of a public duty in which the applicant has some interest, an interest more immediate and genuine than that of the public in general: the applicant must at least belong to a group with a special interest in the matter. The writ will not issue for undoing things already done, unless relief could be granted by declaring those things as null and void. The remedy is discretionary, and relief will not normally be granted when other efficacious remedies are available.