Lack of bona fides: Kerala HC upholds fines imposed on litigant

Kochi: High court has dismissed a review petition filed by M R Ajayan, a journalist from North Paravur in Ernakulam, challenging an order that imposed costs of Rs 10,000 each on him in four cases, on the ground of a lack of bona fides in unnecessarily bringing the matters before the vacation bench during the last Christmas holidays.A bench of Justices A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian passed the order and orally warned the litigant that if such conduct is repeated, the costs would not be confined to Rs 10,000.
During Christmas vacation, Ajayan had filed interlocutory applications (IAs) seeking urgent consideration of four petitions. These included a petition filed by him seeking a CBI probe into the alleged financial transactions between CMRL, a Kochi-based company, and Exalogic Solutions, a now-defunct company owned by T Veena, the daughter of CM Pinarayi Vijayan. The other matters included a petition filed by BJP state president Rajeev Chandrasekhar seeking a CBI investigation into the alleged Sabarimala gold theft case; a public interest litigation seeking to stop toll collection at the Paliyekkara toll plaza on the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch of NH 544; and another case relating to Travancore Devaswom Board.However, on Dec 23, as the sitting of the bench before which the cases were listed was cancelled, the matters were posted before another division bench. When the cases were taken up, the bench noted that there was no representation since the counsel was absent and had not arranged an alternative representation. HC orally criticised this 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 Christmas vacation, HC held that the matters were brought before the vacation bench without any bona fides and accordingly imposed costs of Rs 10,000 in each case, prompting the petitioner to file the present review petition.While considering the review petition, HC noted that the matters were listed, citing urgency, yet there was no representation when they were taken up. Holding that the petition was devoid of merit, HC dismissed the review petition.