CHIEF SERCRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Vs. KHALID MUNDAPPILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Petition is filed by the Chief Secretary to State Government along with the Executive Engineer, PWD and Superintendent of Police, Aluva, the respondents in the WP (C), for reviewing the judgment of this Court rendered in a public interest litigation filed by the first respondent as WP (C) No. 19253 of 2010. Petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation is a resident in the Aluva Municipality who produced photographs along with the Petition showing the temporary stage constructed and the political meeting being held on the public road blocking the traffic in front of the railway station, the transport bus - stand being located on the other side of the road opposite to the railway station. Petitioner's case was that holding of public meeting in the road in front of the railway station is a regular feature and the same causes traffic block on a regular basis and so much so prohibitory orders should be issued against PWD and police authorities from granting permission to hold such meetings in front of the railway station. This Court on seeing the photographs, the genuineness of which is not doubted by the review petitioners, found that stage is constructed partially occupying tarred road and the space for audience is only the tarred road. It is seen that large number of people are sitting on chairs arranged in the tarred portion of the road substantially blocking the road and even preventing access of public to the railway station. After hearing petitioner's counsel we felt that public grievance should be redressed, that too urgently. Since photographs produced established blocking of road which is an illegal act, we felt that there can be no objection from State authorities against this Court passing orders to prevent the illegality. We ourselves have noticed political meetings being held in many busy junctions in the Kochi City substantially, if not fully blocking traffic for long duration. Besides the travelling public and vehicles being held up in the road, even ambulances and vehicles carrying patients, pregnant women, and even accident victims transported for emergency medical aid to hospitals are stranded on the road on account of the traffic block caused during public meetings held on road and road margins. Invariably roadside meetings are organised by political parties and trade unions and no official, whether police, PWD, revenue or Municipal Authority shows the courage to prevent holding of public meetings on road side. Law enforcing agencies invariably turn out to be spectators, if not victims of road blocks by themselves. Considering the urgent need to protect public interest not only to provide free passage to travelling public over the roads, but by taking into account the ground realities about the conditions of the Kerala roads and the need to protect the lives of, sick and accident victims being transported to hospitals and since holding of public meeting on road and road margins was found to be illegal, we allowed the Writ Petition prohibiting the State authorities from granting any permission to hold meetings on public roads and road margins. While allowing the Writ Petition, which was filed in public interest, we felt that not only the residents of Aluva but also the people of the State as a whole should get the benefit of our judgment because public meetings are held not only in front of railway station at Aluva but also in every busy junction in every town, and village in the State, blocking the road. Since it was a public interest litigation, we felt it our duty to extend the benefit of judgment, that is prohibition against holding of public meetings on road and road margins, to the entire State so that the whole people are benefitted. In fact, the Chief Secretary to Government was impleaded only to ensure implementation of the judgment.

(2.) The judgment which was pronounced on 23/06/2010 was widely published in the media and in fact media reports confirm that judgment is rather implemented for the last over six weeks and several meetings initially arranged on public roadside where even Ministers were to participate were shifted and held in convenient places outside the road. Even though judgment affects mostly political parties and to some extent trade unions who hitherto were occasionally holding meetings on road side, none of the political parties or trade unions has approached this Court with any petition to review the judgment. Under this circumstance, we have to only infer that judgment finds general acceptance with the leadership of political parties and trade unions because otherwise they could raise their grievance by filing Review Petitions before this Court. However, strangely the State has filed this Review Petition raising mostly technical objections against the judgment, such as violation of natural justice, granting relief beyond the scope of the Writ Petition, etc. The additional 2nd respondent impleaded in the R.P. referred to Regulation 253 of the State Secretariat Manual under which only Advocate General or the Government Pleaders are entitled to handle writ cases in the High Court. According to him, the State is answerable as to why the Director General of Prosecution is engaged in a Review Petition filed against the judgment in a writ proceeding in violation of the above Regulation. However, we do not think we should consider this issue because we notice that this is only one of the peculiar features in the filing and prosecution of this Petition by the State.

(3.) Even though judgments rendered under Art.226 of the Constitution can be reviewed by the High Court by virtue of the powers available under the very same article, existence of grounds for review of the judgment are always looked into by referring to S.114 read with O.47 R.1 of CPC. It is a settled position that only persons aggrieved by the judgment are permitted to file Review Petition for reviewing the judgment. When we asked a specific question to the Director General of Prosecutions as to whether the Government of Kerala or it's officers have ever held any meeting in the public road or road margin or whether they propose to hold in future any meeting in public road or road margin to feel aggrieved by the judgment, the answer is in the negative thereby confirming that State has no genuine grievance in the matter. On our question as to whose interest the State is trying to protect by reviewing our judgment, the DGP does not have any definite answer except to say that political parties, cultural and religious organisations are all aggrieved. When we asked the DGP that even after wide publicity and wide debate of the judgment in visual and print media no political party, cultural or religious organisation so far has approached this Court with any review petition stating any grievance for them, he does not have any answer.