K. Surendra Mohan, J.:—
[RP 872/2013, WP(C). 29288/2013]
1. The allegations in these cases relate to the alleged demolition of some protected monuments or heritage structures located at the Kalpathy area of Palakkad district. The pointed allegations are against one particular residential building that is known as ‘Josier House’. The allegation is that, the said house has been demolished in violation of the law. The counter allegation is that, the object of the present litigation is to blow out of proportion, a private family dispute, which is being fought by proxy, by one of the family members. Since the issues involved in these cases are common, both the cases are considered together.
2. The Kerala Heritage Preservation and Protection Council, claiming to be a Charitable Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955, having its registered office at 3 Floor, Choolikkal Building, Convent Junction, Ernakulam-682 011, had filed W.P(c) No. 21931 of 2013 alleging that a heritage building which was centuries old known as ‘Josier House’ owned jointly by the members of the family located in new Kalpathy Village, Palakkad district, had been demolished. Valuable architectural artifacts, memorabilia, furniture, pillars, doors etc. were sold off by one K.V. Vaidyanathan, also known as K.V. Ganesh, who is only a co-owner. It is also alleged that the illegal activities were being continued in gross violation of and in total disregard to a stop memo that was issued by the Palakkad Municipality. Though a complaint had been submitted to the Chief Town Planner (Art and Heritage Commission), it was alleged that, no action was being taken thereon. The Writ Petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself on 05.09.2013 with the following direction:
“In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the complaint of the petitioner set out in Exhibit P6 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner as well as the persons who are engaged in the construction work. The 4th respondent shall take necessary steps to enforce Exhibit P5, in the meanwhile.”
3. In the Writ Petition referred to above, Sri. K.V. Vaidyanathan, the person who was alleged to have demolished the heritage structure, had not been made a party. Therefore, he has filed R.P. No. 872 of 2013 seeking review of the judgment dated 5.9.13. As per order dated 25.10.13 in I.A. No. 837 of 2013, the review petitioner was granted leave to prefer the Review Petition. As per another order dated 11.11.13, the Secretary of the Municipality was directed to conduct an inspection of the construction site of the review petitioner and to submit a report regarding the manner in which the construction was being carried on and whether there was any violation of the building permit committed. Accordingly, the inspection was conducted on the same day itself and the Secretary has reported that the construction was proceeding in accordance with the building permit without any deviation or violation of the rules applicable.
4. According to Sri. S. Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the 1 respondent in the Review Petition is guilty of abuse of the process of Court. In the first place, the 1 respondent claims to be a charitable society that is interested in the preservation and conservation of protected monuments, heritage sites and heritage buildings in the State of Kerala. Therefore, they do not claim any personal interest in the subject matter of the Writ Petition. Nor have they suffered any personal injuries or prejudice. Therefore, the Writ Petition ought to have been filed as a Public Interest Litigation. Secondly, though there are hundreds of monuments, heritage buildings and heritage sites spread over the State of Kerala, the 1 respondent has particularly taken up the ‘Josier House’ for its attack. The reason according to the review petitioner is not difficult to see. One Sri. Satish Moorthy, S/o.K.V. Narayana Moorthy, brother of the review petitioner, is the person behind the 1 respondent Society. He is a practicing Advocate of this Court. The role of the said person is unmistakably clear from the sequence of events that led to the filing of the Writ Petition. The tell tale circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the review petitioner are as under.
5. The Writ Petition was filed seeking enforcement of Ext. P5 stop memo issued by the Municipality. According to the petitioner Society, though a complaint Ext. P6 had been submitted pointing out that construction was being proceeded with, in violation of the stop memo, no action was taken. Therefore, directions to consider Ext. P6 were sought. Though the person likely to be affected was the review petitioner, he was not made a party to the Writ Petition.
6. The review petitioner had submitted an application to the Municipality to conduct repairs as per Annexure-2 on 14.08.2012. Exts.P2(a) and P2(b) in the Writ Petition seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) were submitted on 17.10.12. In view of the claims made by Sri. Satish Moorthy, son of the review petitioner's brother Sri. K.V. Narayana Moorthy to the ‘Josier House’ property as per Annexure 4 E.mail dated 21.10.12, his father had, by Annexure-5 E.mail dated 31.10.12, clarified matters. The father has also put on record the fact that Sri. Sathish Moorthy was not allowed by him to claim any right over the property. It has accordingly been stated that the issue was between the father and his brothers and shall be resolved by them among themselves. Annexure-5 E.mail is dated 31.10.12. It was only thereafter on 31.10.12 that the 1 respondent Society was registered. It is alleged that the Society was registered at the instance of Sri. Sathish Moorthy referred to above. After its registration, the only activity in which the said society has involved itself is the present litigation. It is clear from the above that the object in registering the society was only to fight the litigation of Sri. Sathish Moorthy, by proxy. It is contended that, Sri. Sathish Moorthy had personally filed another Writ petition W.P(c) No. 27247 of 2013 in relation to the same subject matter. For the above reasons, it is contended that the Writ Petition W.P(c) No. 21931 of 2013 was nothing but an abuse of the process of Court.
7. The Writ Petition itself was filed alleging that Ext. P5 stop memo had been issued by the Secretary of the Municipality. However, in gross violation thereof the review petitioner was carrying on the construction. Ext. P5 stop memo is dated 12.11.2012. The stop memo has only directed the review petitioner not to carry on his construction without obtaining the requisite permission from the Art and Heritage Commission. The Writ Petition was filed only on 2.9.13. As per Annexure-8, the review petitioner had been granted the necessary permission as early as on 17.7.13. Therefore, the Writ Petition filed on 2.9.13 was without properly ascertaining the facts. Annexure-9 building permit had also been issued to the petitioner on 23.08.2013. It is clear from the above that, the allegations raised in the Writ Petition were absolutely baseless and contrary to facts. This Court having been persuaded to act on the basis of the said allegations, in a Writ Petition to which the review petitioner had not been made a party, it is contended that, stringent action is necessary to be taken against the petitioner, considering the further fact that the President, Secretary, Treasurer and other functionaries are all Advocates practicing before this Court. It is not too much to expect such persons to exercise proper diligence and care while initiating such action. Various decisions of the Supreme Court are also referred to and relied upon to support his contention that the conduct of the 1 respondent Society as well as the functionaries of the said organization requires serious notice at the hands of this Court.
8. It is further pointed out that the Writ Petition was filed by the Society, represented by its President Sri. T.M. Sunil. The 1 respondent in the Review Petition is also the same person. However, the counter affidavit in the Review Petition, styled as filed by the 1 respondent, has been sworn to by one Smt. Simily Abraham who has described herself as the Honorary Secretary of the Council. The affidavits filed in support of the Interlocutory Applications filed in the Review Petition have also been sworn to by the very same person. However, Annexure-11 certified copy of the Articles of Association of the Society shows that Smt. Simily Abraham is the Treasurer. The person who has been shown as the Secretary is none other than the present counsel appearing for the 1 respondent in this case. Annexure-12 communication issued by the District Registrar shows that no change in the office bearers of the 1 respondent has been effected after the registration. Annexure-13 copy of the vakalath filed in this case by the present counsel is referred to, to point out that the vakalath was also filed for the President of the 1 respondent. However, the vakalath has been executed by Smt. Simily Abraham, who is admittedly not the President. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has therefore gone to the extent of questioning the competence of the person who has sworn to the affidavits and purported to represent the 1 respondent, to do so. It has also been pointed out that, the counsel who is presently appearing for the 1 respondent is not properly authorised to make his submissions on behalf of the 1 respondent. The present counsel of the 1 respondent is none other than the person who has submitted Exts.P2 and P2(a) applications to the Public Information Officer under the Act.
9. After the 1 respondent Society was registered on 21.11.12, the only issue that has been taken up by the said organization is the present private dispute. Sri. S. Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the review petitioner further points out that according to the statements in the counter affidavit dated 8.11.13 of the 1 respondent, the demolition of ‘Josier House’ was brought to the notice of the members of the 1 respondent at the ‘Kalpathi Theruvu Festival’ of 2012. The above statement is false according to the learned counsel for the reason that, the Society was registered only on 21.11.12; while the festival referred to was conducted on the 14, 15 and 16 of November, 2012. Grounds B, C and D in the Writ Petition clearly refer to specific details of the ‘Josier House’ which are matters within the exclusive knowledge of the members of the family. Thus, the reference to family heirlooms, ancient pillars, doors etc. as well as to the ‘Siva Pooja’ conducted there every day clearly bring out the involvement of a member of the family in instituting and prosecuting this litigation. A comparison of the said grounds with the allegations contained in Annexure-4 E.mail of Sri. Sathish Moorthy Advocate, would reveal the source of such information. The reference in the Writ Petition at para.4 to the review petitioner as K.V. Vaidyanathan alias K.V. Ganesh lends additional support to the above inference. This is for the reason that only the family members know that the review petitioner is also known by the name Ganesh.
10. According to the learned counsel, the construction that is progressing is being carried on strictly in accordance with the building permit and permission granted by the authorities. In spite of the above, in view of the direction of this Court contained in the judgment sought to be reviewed, his construction was directed to be stopped by the authorities. The said state of affairs was precipitated by the false practice by the 1 respondent's counsel in filing the Writ Petition. The writ petitioner has therefore not only misled this Court into issuing the said direction but has also caused needless loss, inconvenience and hardships to the review petitioner whose construction was held up, though temporarily. The said conduct, especially at the instance of lawyers practicing before this Court, shall not be countenanced at any cost, it is contended. Therefore, he seeks review of the judgment in W.P(c) No. 21931 of 2013 and a fresh hearing of the Writ Petition.
11. W.P(c) No. 29288 of 2013 has been filed by the 1 respondent in the Review Petition challenging Ext. P8 order dated 17.07.13 of the Chief Town Planner and Principal Secretary, who is the 1 respondent, Ext. P12 Minutes of the hearing conducted on 23.10.13 pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the judgment in W.P(c) No. 21931 of 2013 and Ext. P9 building permit dated 23.08.13 issued to the review petitioner who is the 5 respondent herein. The challenge against the proceedings that are impugned in this Writ Petition is also on the basis of the very same contentions put forward in W.P(c) No. 21931 of 2013 and the Review Petition. Therefore, I do not venture to reproduce the same at any length, here. For the sake of convenience, the parties as well as the exhibits produced are referred to in the manner in which they are referred to in the Review Petition and the counter affidavit filed therein.
12. The 1 respondent refutes all the allegations made by the review petitioner and his counsel. All the allegations regarding suppression of material facts made by the review petitioner are denied. The allegation that the Writ Petition itself was filed at the instance of one Sathish Moorthy is denied. The first respondent had only taken up and espoused the cause of unauthorised demolition of a heritage property when such demolition was brought to its notice by its members at the ‘Kalpathy Theru Festival’ of 2012. The first respondent council, exercising due diligence submitted applications under the Right To Information Act and filed the Writ Petition only after obtaining necessary information from the authorities. The allegation that the Writ Petition itself was filed by a private individual to wreak vengeance over a family dispute is denied. The review petitioner had obtained permission for conducting some minor repairs and had demolished the heritage building. Thereupon, a stop memo was issued by the 5 respondent. According to the first respondent, there were no grounds to review the judgment and therefore contends that the same is only to be dismissed.
13. A further counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent on 05.02.2014 to I.A. No. 42 of 2014 wherein also, the contentions in the earlier counter affidavits are reiterated. The counter affidavit contains personal allegations against one Ramesh Vaidyanathan who is the son of the review petitioner. His credentials as a lawyer are questioned by the deponent. The counter affidavit further goes on to state that Advocate Kappillil Anil Kumar, who is appearing for the first respondent had resigned from his post as the Secretary of the first respondent on 15.04.2013 after which, the deponent became the Secretary. A number of contentions to underscore the concern of the first respondent to preserve heritage buildings and to support the claim of good faith made by the first respondent have been elaborately set out. It is vehemently contended that, there are absolutely no grounds to review the judgment of this Court as sought for by the petitioner.
14. As per the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court had directed the Chief Town Planner, Art & Heritage Commission (the 2 respondent) to consider the complaint of the first respondent in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon. Accordingly, the matter was considered and the complaint was found to be without any basis by the 2 respondent, as per exhibit P12. As per exhibit P8, the Chief Town Planner of Member Secretary, Art and Heritage Commission granted permission for the construction of the review petitioner subject to conditions. Exhibit P9 building permit was granted by the Palakkad Municipality. Exhibits P8, P9 and P12 proceedings are under challenge at the instance of the first respondent in W.P.(C) No. 29288 of 2013 reiterating the very same contentions. A statement has been filed on behalf of the Secretary, Palakkad Municipality (the 5 respondent). According to the statement, the review petitioner had commenced construction without obtaining the concurrence of the Arts and Heritage Commission. The Municipality had thereafter granted him permit and the construction was being carried on in accordance with the same. It is further stated that, on 11.11.2013, a site inspection was conducted. Upon conducting measurements, it was found that there was no deviation from the permit granted. No other irregularity was also detected in respect of the on going construction.
15. Heard. A perusal of the judgment sought to be reviewed shows that, it has only directed the 2 respondent herein to consider the complaint of the first respondent and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment The said direction has already been complied with and the proceedings of the second respondent are under challenge in the connected Writ Petition. It is true that, the Writ Petition in which the above direction was issued, had been filed without making the review petitioner a party, though he was a necessary party. There are also lot of allegations about the object of filing the Writ Petition itself to which I shall return later. The bona fides of the first respondent in filing the Writ petition is also seriously disputed and requires to be considered, separately. However, the fact remains that no prejudice has been caused to the review petitioner by the direction that has been issued in W.P.(C) No. 21931 of 2013. The said direction has already been complied with and therefore, the direction has worked itself out. No error of law apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reason warranting a review thereof has been brought to my notice. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to review the judgment as sought for by the petitioner. However, I shall consider the contentions regarding the bona fides of these proceedings, in W.P.(C) No. 29288 of 2013 filed by the first respondent, since the parties have agreed that both the cases could be considered together on the basis of the pleadings on record.
16. W.P.(C) No. 21931 of 2013 was filed on 02.09.2013 by the Kerala Heritage Preservation and Protection Council Registered: Ekm/TC/A20/2012, represented by its President Shri. T.M. Sunil. According to the averments in the Writ Petition, the organization is a charitable society registered with the object of preserving protected monuments, heritage sites and heritage buildings in the State of Kerala. The Writ Petition was filed complaining that a centuries old heritage property comprised in 10cents of land in Survey No. 1457/1 in Block No. 38, Puthur Amsom, New Kalpathy Village, Palakkad District known as ‘Josier House’ was being demolished without obtaining any permission from the authorities. It is stated that the Writ Petitioner Society's Secretary had obtained exhibits P3(a) and P3(b) information under the Right to Information Act. The information was to the effect that, demolition and reconstruction of the house was being carried on after obtaining permission for conducting minor repairs. It is also alleged that the heritage structure had been demolished and valuable architectural artefacts, memorabilia, furniture, pillars, doors etc. were sold off. It was further alleged that a stop memo exhibit P5 had been issued. Though representations were preferred by the Society before the authorities, they were not taking any action. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner sought for the issue of a direction for consideration of the representation exhibit P6. It is on the very same averments that, the impugned proceedings in W.P.(C) No. 29288 of 2013 are also attacked. Curiously enough, the review petitioner who was the person against whom allegations of unauthorised construction were made was not made a party to the Writ Petition. Since the prayer was only for a direction to consider the representation exhibit P6 and since the said prayer was not opposed by the counsel for the Panchayat or the Government Pleader who represented the other respondents, a direction was issued. The contention now raised and strenuously put forward on behalf of the writ petitioner, as already noticed above is that, the whole exercise is an abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, it has to be examined whether there is any bona fides on the part of the society in instituting these proceedings.
17. In the above context, it is necessary to notice that the society, the Kerala Heritage Preservation and Protection Council was admittedly registered only on 21.11.2012. There are no records of any activity of preservation of heritage building or sites undertaken by the society. The information seen to have been obtained under the Right to Information Act is on the basis of an application submitted on 17.10.2012 (exhibit P2), before the society was registered. The said application is seen to have been preferred by Sri. Anilkumar Kappillil, Advocate, High Court of Kerala. He is none other than the present counsel appearing for the society. Though it is stated that he was the Secretary of the society at the relevant time, the society had not been registered on 17.10.2012. His address in exhibit P2 is shown as, Lawyers Syndicate, 3 Floor, Choolakkal Building, Convent Junction, Ernakulam. It is the same address at which the society has been registered. In W.P.(C) No. 21931 of 2013, the address of the Writ Petitioner is the same. The only complaint put forward by the society in these proceedings is against the construction of the review petitioner. Since the society had set out to espouse a public cause, without seeking any personal relief, the Writ Petitions ought to have been filed as public interest litigations. That was not done. In W.P.(C) No. 21931 of 2013, the review petitioner who is the person affected, was not made a party. A careful reading of the averments in the Writ Petitions and the counter affidavits filed leave no doubt in my mind that what is being projected is a private property dispute, with the real players remaining behind the curtains, concealed. The counsel who had filed the Writ Petitions relinquished her vakalath when the entire controversy erupted. Thereafter, the present counsel who claims to have resigned from his post as Secretary of the Society has been representing the society as its counsel. There is no explanation as to how and from what source the society has obtained information regarding the personal details of the review petitioner and his family. His son, one Ramesh who is stated to be a lawyer has also not been spared. The allegations against the manner in which he has been conducting his profession as a lawyer also find place in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the society. What is the source of such information is not forthcoming. Though the Writ Petition was initially filed by the society represented by its President, the subsequent affidavits have been filed by its Secretary without putting on record, any documents to evidence her authority to represent the President. No leave of the Court has been obtained for doing so. There is also no averment in the affidavits filed to the effect that the deponent had been authorised to file such affidavits on behalf of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21931 of 2013. In the above context, the allegation of the review petitioner and his counsel that these proceedings had been instituted at the instance of a disgruntled family member who is a practicing lawyer of this Court, assumes significance. The counsel for the review petitioner has also pointed out that, the vakalath in favour of the counsel appearing in these cases has been executed by the Secretary who is not a party to these proceedings.
18. W.P.(C) No. 29288 of 2013 is filed by the very same society. The society is represented by Smt. Simily K. Abraham who claims to be the Secretary thereof. The address of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is different and is shown as Pulickal House, CMC 21, Cherthala, though the registration number is the same. There is no indication anywhere in the Writ Petition as to how the address has changed. This Writ Petition also is not a public interest litigation but challenges the proceedings issued in favour of Sri. K.V. Vaidyanathan who is the 5 respondent granting him permission to construct. The Society which is a stranger to the dispute and not affected one way or the other by the impugned proceedings has only public interest to rely on, as the reason for filing the Writ Petition. As already noticed above, the case pleaded by the society lacks credibility. Even while asserting that they are acting in public interest, it is clear that they are targeting only the 5 respondent. According to the counsel for the 5 respondent, a nephew of the 5 respondent is orchestrating the proceedings from behind the scenes. There are a number of contradictions for which no answer is available. According to the Secretary of the Society, going by the statements in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit dated 05.02.2014, Advocate Kappillil Anilkumar had resigned on 15.04.2013. The statement reads as under:—
It is true that Advocate Kappillil Anilkumar had resigned from the post of Secretary of the Council on 15 April 2013 and I was appointed as the Secretary.
19. However, a perusal of exhibit P11 in W.P.(C) No. 29288 of 2013 shows Sri. Anilkumar, Kappillil as the Secretary of the Society. Exhibit P11 is dated 23.10.2013. It is therefore clear that, the statement in the counter affidavit extracted above is false. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of these cases, it is clear that these proceedings have not been instituted in good faith. When the above factual scenario unfolded, a memo has been filed by the counsel on 12.02.2014 seeking to withdraw the Writ Petition. However, I am not satisfied that the Writ petitions should be permitted to be withdrawn for the reason that, the Writ Petitioner is guilty of abuse of the process of this Court. The Chief Town Planner who considered the matter after hearing the parties has in exhibit P12 also come to the conclusion that the dispute was essentially a private family dispute. Therefore, the fact remains that, this Court has been made a tool for the purpose of achieving the devious ends of the petitioner or whoever is behind the scenes.
20. I am not able to identity the person who is behind the whole exercise of filing these Writ Petitions. However, the fact remains that it is on the basis of information obtained under the Right to Information Act as per exhibit P2 application dated 17.10.2012 by none other than the present counsel for the society, that these proceedings have been instituted. The society was registered on 21.11.2012 and, an order was obtained from this Court in W.P.(C) No. 21931 of 2013 without even making the affected party a respondent. The stand of the society in the counter affidavit dated 05.02.2014 to I.A. No. 42 of 2014 shows her defiant attitude towards even the serious discrepancies pointed out by the review petitioner. In paragraph 4 thereof, she states as follows:—
It is not of any significance whether any particular individual is holding the office of the President, Secretary or the treasurer of the Council who takes up any issue before any forum but it is the authorisation given to that particular individual to represent the Executive Committee by virute of Clause 23 of Annexure-1 alone is important. And as such in the absence of Advocate T.M. Sunil, President, who was abroad and in view of the resignation of Advocate Kappillil Anilkumar from the post of the Secretary, I was elected as the Honorary Secretary of the Council and was also authorised to defend the above Review Petition for and on behalf of the Council. Whether the Council which is a Registered Charitable Society is represented by its President or its Secretary or any person authorised by the Executive Committee, the outcome of the proceedings shall be binding on the legal entity i.e., the Kerala Heritage Preservation and Protection Council. Therefore the technicality raised by the Review Petitioner in Paragraph 2 has no merits and is therefore liable to be rejected.
21. In spite of the above statement regarding authorisation granted by the society, no such documents have been produced.
22. I remind myself that this Court is an institution established for the administration of justice. It is the only hope of the deprived and underprivileged for obtaining justice. It is not an institution that should be made a tool by the crafty and devious to settle their private scores. Any person who attempts to do so, does so at his peril. The Apex Court has emphasized the above aspect in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] speaking for the Court C.K. Thakker (J) (as he then was) held in paragraphs 38 and 39 as follows:—
“38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play hide and seek or to pick and choose the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of truth and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because “the court knows law but not facts”.
39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.
23. In view of the above declaration of the law, this Court would be failing in its duty, if the Writ Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition and to see that he makes a safe exit. This is a case in which the review petitioner who is also the 5 respondent in the other Writ Petition has been dragged to this Court and made to undergo the ordeal of defending these proceedings, at the instance of a society that has been masquerading as an organization espousing public interest. Therefore, the least that is required to be done is to make the petitioner liable for its actions.
24. The impugned proceedings exhibit P12 in W.P.(C) No. 29288 of 2013 have been passed after hearing all the parties, pursuant to the direction issued by of this Court. I am not satisfied that it suffers from any infirmity that warrants interference. The petitioner is not a person who has been prejudiced by the impugned proceedings in any manner. No prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner by the said proceedings. The conduct of the petitioner and its office bearers amounts to abuse of the process of Court of a serious order, especially for the reason that the office bearers of the society are all lawyers. Their conduct is taken serious note of. The other proceedings under challenge are also held not liable to be interfered with.
25. For the foregoing reasons,
(1) R.P. No. 872 of 2013 is dismissed.
(2) W.P.(C) No. 29288 of 2013 is dismissed. Respondents 5 and 6 shall be entitled to recover the costs of this litigation from the Writ Petitioner which is quantified and fixed at Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only).