RENJITH KRISHNAN R. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner seeks action against two individuals, Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The Petitioner also seeks a direction to the statutory Authorities to conduct an enquiry in respect of the property comprised in Re-survey No. 302/2 in Block No. 24 in Thanneermukkam Vadakku Village, which, according to the Petitioner, is a wetland, and Respondent No. 6 is filling it up contrary to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

(2.) In the Petition, all that the Petitioner discloses about himself is that he is a citizen of India and permanently residing at the address given in the petition. The Petitioner states on oath that he has no personal or private interest in the matter. Respondent No. 7 has filed an affidavit raising a serious grievance that the Petitioner has a personal grudge against Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, which he masquerades as public interest. Respondent No. 7 asserts that the Petitioner is a real estate broker who brokered the sale of the very same property by Respondent No. 6 to Respondent No. 7, and he received Rs.50,000.00 from Respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 7 also paid him Rs.15,000.00. The Petitioner started demanding more money from Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, and since they refused, he resorted to file this petition. Respondent No. 7 has denied any illegal activities and has stated that the stop memo issued by Respondent No. 4 was challenged by Respondent No. 6, and that the operation of the said memo was stayed in W.P.(C) No.8020 of 2023 by the learned Single Judge on 17/3/2023, a fact that has also been suppressed by the Petitioner. A memo has been filed by the Government Pleader annexing the report of the Inspector of Police, which states that, as per the enquiry conducted, there are several civil cases pending against the Petitioner and a warrant is pending in a criminal case. The Petitioner states that there is no criminal case pending, and some of them are only proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(3.) We have examined the record, including the documentary evidence regarding the transfer of money to the Petitioner placed on record by Respondent No. 7. The Petitioner has suppressed the fact that he was a broker between Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for the transaction and has received remuneration for the sale of the same property. The case of Respondent No. 7 that the Petitioner filed this petition only when his demand for more money was not met, has to be believed. Further, the pendency of W.P.(C) No.8020 of 2023, challenging the stop memo issued to Respondent No. 6, and the interim order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 17/3/2023 are also not disclosed. This Petition thus, is a clear instance of misuse of the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction, where proceedings have been initiated to pursue personal motive under the guise of public interest.