Johnson Padamadan vs State Of Kerala And Ors

Petitioner claims to be the President of Kerala Bus Transport Association State Committee and as such, concerned about the functioning of the

office of the Transport Commissioner and the unauthorised, illegal and corrupt practices adopted by officers in the Motor Vehicles Department. The

specific allegation in the writ petition is against the corrupt practices adopted by the 7th respondent, while working as Assistant Motor Vehicle

Inspector at the Sub Regional Transport Office, Mattancherry. The particular instance highlighted by the petitioner is the vehicle checking conducted

by the 7th respondent on 08.10.2014, near the Toll Booth on the Indira Gandhi Road in Wellingdon Island. According to the petitioner, the checking

was conducted after duty hours and without obtaining prior permission from superior officers. It is alleged that the 7th respondent had reached the

spot in her husband's car and not in the departmental vehicle. That, during the course of inspection, the folder containing the fine amount collected, the

check report book, TR-5 book and seized driving licences kept inside the car were reportedly lost. Instead of reporting the matter at the Harbour

Police Station situated close by, the 7th respondent lodged a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mattancherry and the complaint

was forwarded to the Harbour Police Station only on 11.10.2014, three days after the incident. Even though a crime was registered under Section 379

IPC, it was closed as undetected. Instead of conducting a departmental enquiry and imposing severe punishment on the 7th respondent, the superior

officials blindly accepted her explanation and closed the proceedings by directing to recover the amount of Rs.21,400/-lost from the possession of the

7th respondent. According to the petitioner, the actual amount collected by the 7th respondent was Rs.4,45,000/-and the claim of having collected only

Rs.21,400/-as fine, is false. The petitioner filed Ext.P8 complaint before the 4th respondent, seeking a detailed enquiry into the misconduct of the 7th

respondent and appropriate departmental action against her. The complaint having evoked no response, the petitioner filed Ext.P12 before the 1st

respondent, praying for registration of crime against the 7th respondent and an enquiry by the Vigilance Department. Ext.P12 also being left

unanswered, the writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to register a

vigilance case and to conduct a detailed investigation regarding the inspection of vehicles by the 7th respondent near the tool booth of

Indira Gandhi road, Welligdon Island on 08.12.2014, the alleged incident of loss of file, the real things happened including the actual

collection and the role of the respondents 4 to 6 in extending unholy help to the 7th respondent in the matter.â€​

In her counter affidavit, the 7th respondent has refuted the allegations, terming them to be false, frivolous and ill-motivated. Further, she has

questioned the very maintainability of the writ petition. According to the 7th respondent, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

As regards the incident that took place on 08.10.2014, the version of the 7th respondent is that, while returning home after conducting checking near

the CISF check post at Wellingdon Island between 7.30 p.m and 9.00 p.m, she realised that the folder containing the check report book, TR5 receipt

book, fine amount of Rs.21,400/- and four driving licences seized by her were missing. Immediately, she rushed back to the spot and searched the

entire area with the help of the CISF personnel present there. Having failed to recover the missing documents and cash, information was given at the

Harbour Police Station. But, the police did not register a crime or enter the information in the complaint register. Instead, the crime was registered on

11.10.2014, that too, after the 7th respondent approached the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who directed the Station House Officer, Harbour

Police Station, to register the crime. The Police failed to identify the culprits or recover the stolen articles and filed final report before the jurisdictional

court, requesting to treat the crime as undetected. The loss of cash and receipt books resulted in departmental action being initiated against the 7th

respondent. The disciplinary authority, after providing opportunity to submit explanation, found the 7th respondent to have been negligent in handling

the cash and documents. Consequently, the fine amount of Rs.21,400/- lost from her possession, was fixed as her personal liability. Pursuant to the

order issued by the Transport Commissioner, the sum of Rs.21,400/- was recovered from the salary of the 7th respondent.

Heard Sri.Shabu Sreedharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Girija K.Gopal, learned Counsel for the 7th respondent and Smt.Sony K.B,

learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance).

Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the allegations in the writ petition and submitted that the 7th respondent had conducted vehicle

checking on 08.10.2014, after her duty time, without prior permission and had reached the spot in her husband's car. According to the learned Counsel,

nothing further is required to prove that the checking was illegal and conducted for personal aggrandisement. It is submitted that the actual amount lost

was not Rs.21,400/-, as reported by the 7th respondent, but Rs.4,45,000/-as per the information received from reliable sources. Reliance is placed on

Exts.P14 to P16 series of receipts to demonstrate that the fine collected by the 7th respondent and allegedly lost from her possession, would be much

more than Rs.21,400/-. According to the learned Counsel, the superior officers of the 7th respondent had acted hand-in-glove with her, by imposing

only a minor penalty for the serious offence of defalcation of public funds. It is therefore contended that, unless vigilance enquiry is ordered, the true

facts will not come to light and the 7th respondent will remain unscathed.

Learned Counsel for the 7th respondent refuted the contention and submitted that the writ petition is nothing but witch hunting, motivated by

personal vendetta against her client, for having carried out her duties honestly and without succumbing to the dictates of the petitioner and his

Association. Copy of the relevant extract from the Motor Vehicle Department Manual [Ext.R7(a)], dealing with the functions and duties of Assistant

Motor Vehicle Inspectors, is relied on to contend that an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector is a full time field officer in charge of a circle and hence,

there no prohibition against an AMVI conducting vehicle checking after regular office hours. Strong exception is taken against the allegation of the

petitioner having collected Rs.4,45,000/- during the checking conducted on 08.10.2014. It is contended that the allegation is made without an iota of

evidence and that Exts.P14 to P16 receipts are produced with the deliberate intention of misleading the Court. It is pointed out that Exts.P14 to P16

series are receipts issued towards collection of tax from vehicles that had violated national permit conditions and therefore, the quantum of amount

payable as fine would be much more than the fines and compounding fees to be remitted for minor violations. Reference is made to Ext.R7(b)

judgment of this Court and Ext.R7(c) order of the State Information Commissioner, to contend that the petitioner and the other office bearers of his

Association are in the habit of threatening and filing false complaints/cases against honest officers in the Motor Vehicles Department. That, on

realising the dubious motive, this Court had dismissed W.P.(C) No.12875 of 2019 filed by the Secretary of the petitioner's Association, with cost of

Rs.5,00,000/-. Likewise, the State Information Commissioner had dismissed the application seeking information filed by the writ petitioner, finding that

the information was sought for settling personal scores and for compelling honest officers to act as per the directives of his Association.

In reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, being a public spirited citizen, he is legally entitled to bring the malpractices committed

by public servants to the notice of the authorities, and on their failure to act, to the notice of this Court. It is submitted that, as against Ext.R7(b)

judgment, a review petition has been filed and that, Ext.r7(c) is under challenge in a writ petition.

Having heard the learned Counsel at length, I find substantial force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 7th respondent that the writ

petition amounts to an abuse of process of court. It is an undisputed fact that pursuant to the petitioner's complaint regarding loss of documents and

cash, a crime was registered at the Harbour Police Station and the police, after investigation, reported the crime to be undetected. Ext.P2 final report

was filed on 06.04.2015 and no action, either in the form of a protest complaint or a request for further investigation, was taken by the petitioner. All

that is done later was to send Ext.P8 representation dated 09.02.2016 requesting the Transport Commissioner to transfer the petitioner and conduct an

enquiry. As far as the departmental proceedings against the 7th respondent is concerned, it is settled law that third parties has no right to challenge the

disciplinary proceedings and that, there is no scope for public interest litigation in service matters.

Coming to the factual allegations, I am constrained to observe that the petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate the contention that the 7th

respondent could not have conducted the checking after duty hours. On the other hand, the 7th respondent has succeeded in establishing that an

Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector being a full time officer, no particular time for checking of vehicles is prescribed. In order to substantiate the

allegation that the actual amount lost is Rs.4,45,000/-, the petitioner has produced Exts.P14 to P16 receipts. It was contended by the learned Counsel

for the 7th respondent that Exts.P14 to P16 are receipts issued towards collection of fine for major violations by national permit vehicles, where as the

7th respondent had collected the fine for minor violations committed by vehicles plying within city limits. It was also alleged that Exts.P14 to 16 are

produced to mislead this Court. Neither the contention, of the the receipts issued by the 7th respondent being entirely different from Exts.P14 to 16

receipts, nor the contention that Exts.P14 to P16 are produced to mislead the Court, is controverted or attempted to be explained. The aforementioned

factors compel me to reach at the unequivocal conclusion of the writ petition having been filed with the sole objective of defaming and demoralising

the 7th respondent.

Having come across repeated instances of frivolous litigations being filed by the vested interests, the Apex Court has set forth principles that

should govern the litigants while approaching the court. Two among those principles stated in Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P., [(2013) 2 SCC 398],

which according to me, are contextually relevant, are extracted hereunder:

“32.1.Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings

without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with “unclean handsâ€. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to

be heard on the merits of the case nor are entitled to any relief.

32.2.The people, who approach the court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the

whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in

favour of such a litigant.â€​

Despite the attempts to curb abuse of the public interest jurisdiction, the propensity to file frivolous cases, garbed as public interest litigations, is on the

increase. The instant writ petition is a classic example of such abuse, which leaves me with no option, but to dismiss the writ petition with costs.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the 7th respondent. If the cost is not paid within one

month, the District Collector, Ernakulam shall initiate recovery proceedings for realisation of the amount.