Kerala High Court Rejects Journalist's Review Petition Against Rs 40,000 Costs
The Kerala High Court has firmly dismissed a review petition filed by journalist M R Ajayan from North Paravur in Ernakulam district. The petition challenged an earlier order that imposed costs of Rs 10,000 each on him in four separate cases, totaling Rs 40,000. The court based its decision on the ground that there was a lack of bona fides in unnecessarily bringing these matters before the vacation bench during the last Christmas holidays.
Court's Stern Warning and Order Details
A bench comprising Justices A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian passed the order, delivering a clear oral warning to the litigant. The justices cautioned that if such conduct is repeated in the future, the costs imposed would not be confined to the current amount of Rs 10,000 per case. This stern message underscores the court's intolerance for what it perceived as frivolous or strategic filings during judicial vacations.
Background of the Cases Filed During Christmas Vacation
During the Christmas vacation period, Ajayan had filed interlocutory applications (IAs) seeking urgent consideration of four petitions. These included:
- A petition filed by Ajayan himself, requesting a CBI probe into alleged financial transactions between CMRL, a Kochi-based company, and Exalogic Solutions, a now-defunct company owned by T Veena, the daughter of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
- A petition filed by BJP state president Rajeev Chandrasekhar, seeking a CBI investigation into the alleged Sabarimala gold theft case.
- A public interest litigation aimed at stopping toll collection at the Paliyekkara toll plaza on the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch of NH 544.
- Another case related to the Travancore Devaswom Board.
Events Leading to the Imposition of Costs
On December 23, the sitting of the bench before which these cases were originally listed was cancelled. Consequently, the matters were posted before another division bench. When the cases were taken up, the bench noted that there was no representation from the counsel, who was absent and had not arranged for an alternative representation.
The High Court orally criticized this lapse and observed that it was aware of who was behind the filings and the reasons for bringing up the matters during the vacation. Taking note of the fact that all four cases had already been adjourned by different benches to be taken up after the Christmas vacation, the HC held that the matters were brought before the vacation bench without any bona fides. Accordingly, the court imposed costs of Rs 10,000 in each case, which prompted Ajayan to file the present review petition.
Dismissal of the Review Petition
While considering the review petition, the High Court noted that although the matters were listed citing urgency, there was no representation when they were taken up. Holding that the petition was devoid of merit, the HC dismissed the review petition, thereby upholding the earlier order and the imposed costs. This decision reinforces the judiciary's stance against what it views as misuse of court processes, especially during vacation periods when resources are limited.
