In a significant move, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday slapped a fine of Rs 10,000 each in four separate cases against advocate V R Manoranjan, citing a lack of genuine intent in presenting the matters before a vacation bench. The total penalty amounts to Rs 40,000.
Court's Stern Action Against "Unnecessary" Filings
A division bench comprising Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and P M Manoj directed the counsel to pay the costs to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. The court orally observed that it was aware of the motivations behind bringing these specific cases during the court vacation, implying the filings were not made in good faith.
The cases were initially listed before a different bench, but were transferred to the bench headed by Justice Mustaque after the sitting of the former was cancelled on Tuesday morning. When the matters were called, the court noted that Advocate Manoranjan was absent and had left without arranging for any representation.
Details of the Four Controversial Cases
The fines were imposed in connection with four distinct matters where Manoranjan was acting for litigant M R Ajayan, a senior journalist from North Paravur in Ernakulam. The central case involved an interlocutory application (IA) filed on behalf of Ajayan in his own petition. This petition seeks a CBI probe into alleged financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions, a now-defunct company owned by T Veena, the daughter of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
In the three other cases, Manoranjan had filed IAs seeking to implead his client, journalist M R Ajayan, as a party. These cases are:
- A petition filed by BJP state president Rajeev Chandrasekhar demanding a CBI investigation into the alleged Sabarimala gold theft case.
- A public interest litigation (PIL) aimed at preventing toll collection at the Paliyekkara plaza on the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch of National Highway 544.
- Another case related to the Devaswom Board.
Bench Questions Timing and Intent
The court took serious note of the fact that all four cases had already been adjourned by different benches and were scheduled to be heard only after the Christmas vacation. This led the bench to conclude that there was no urgent or bona fide reason to list them before the vacation bench.
The bench explicitly stated that the cases were brought up without any bona fides, leading to the imposition of costs. This ruling underscores the judiciary's stance against practices that may be seen as attempting to bypass standard procedures or burden the court during its vacation period with non-urgent matters.
The order serves as a clear message to legal practitioners about the importance of judicial propriety and the need to ensure that court time, especially during vacations, is reserved for genuinely urgent matters requiring immediate attention.
