IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37948 of 2010(S)


1. DR. VENUGOPAL.R., AGED 42 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. P.B. SOMAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS,
3. D. SAJI, AGED 41 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. KADUTHURUTHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA

3. GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS,

4. T.M. ABDUL KALAM,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :16/02/2011

 O R D E R
        J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
        ===============================
                     W.P.(C) NO. 37948 OF 2010
                 ======================

           Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011

                            J U D G M E N T

Antony Dominic, J.

Petitioners are residents of Ward No.II of Kaduthuruthy Grama Panchayat. They filed this writ petition styling itself as a public interest litigation with the following three prayers:-

(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction calling for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P1 consent and Ext.P2 licence in favour of 3rd respondent and quash the same;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, orders or directions commanding the 1st respondent Panchayat to ensure that neither cement handling is permitted in building No KP III/341-A in Kaduthuruthy Panchayat owned by 3rd respondent nor it will be permitted to be used as a cement storage.

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, orders or direction commanding the 1st respondent Panchayat to ensure that Building No KP III/341-A in Kaduthuruthy Panchayat owned by the 3rd respondent will be permitted to be used as only for commercial occupancy as per Ext.P4 permit and never for 'storage' or 'hazardous' occupancy in violation of the provisions of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999.

2. First of all, we are not satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for entertaining this writ petition as public  WP(C) No.37948/2010 : 2 : interest litigation. The expression "public interest litigation" has been understood as meaning legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected {vide Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary (1992(4) SCC

305)}. Such litigation should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and shall not be publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta (vide Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B {(2004) 3 SCC 349}. It has been held by the Apex Court that the public interest litigation is not a pill or panacea for all wrongs and that it was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court for relief (BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002(2) SCC 333).

3. Applying these tests, we are clear in our minds that the issue raised in this writ petition concerning the validity of Ext.P1 consent to operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control  WP(C) No.37948/2010 : 3 : Board or Ext.P2, the licence issued by the respondent Panchayat on purely private disputes cannot form the subject matter of public interest litigation.

4. In so far as Ext.P1 consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board in favour of the 3rd respondent is concerned, Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 provides for remedy of appeal. Similarly, against Ext.P2, the licence issued under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is concerned also, if the petitioners are aggrieved, it is open to them to seek statutory remedy of appeal. Therefore, effective alternate statutory remedies are available to the petitioners and it is for the petitioners to pursue those remedies. However, in his endeavour to contend that the writ petition is maintainable, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Exts.P1 and P2 were issued without jurisdiction, and therefore, it is open to the petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court without pursuing the alternate statutory remedies.

5. Admittedly, the respondent Panchayat has been invested with the power to issue licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Similarly, the Pollution Control Board also has been invested with such powers. Therefore, it is not a case where  WP(C) No.37948/2010 : 4 : these authorities are not without jurisdiction to issue the licenses. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the licence and consent were issued without jurisdiction to justify the filing of this writ petition without taking recourse to the statutory remedies. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the writ petition is not maintainable.

6. However, it is clarified that if the petitioners are aggrieved, it will still be open to the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedies and it is directed that if they file appeals against the impugned orders within one month from today, the respective appellate authorities will entertain the appeals and deal with the same in accordance with law.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

J.CHELAMESWAR CHIEF JUSTICE.

ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE.

Rp