Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Friday came down heavily on a lawyer who moved a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that funds being collected by individuals and private organisations for the relief of the Wayanad landslide victims, were not reaching the intended beneficiaries. He also sought the establishment of a centralised system for collecting and managing such funds.
Court pulled up the lawyer C Shukkur, who acted as Shukkur Vakkeel in Kunchacko Boban-starrer 'Nna Thaan Kesu Kodu', saying that he was seeking 'cheap publicity' by filing the PIL. The division bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar VM also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 and directed the petitioner to pay the amount to the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF).
The plea claimed that crores of rupees were collected by various private individuals and organizations, often under religious or political banners, without proper accountability or management. It argued that multiple associations and private entities were parallelly soliciting donations globally, even though the government was already collecting funds through the CMDRF.
The petitioner said funds are being collected by various organisations 'under political colour or on religious basis' asking public to contribute to the their bank accounts or Apps they created. "They are trying to mobilise the fund through social media by uploading videos and pamphlets," the plea said.
Shukkur, in his plea, said the collection of fund by the different organisation has to be discouraged or should be monitored and utilsation of finds should be directed through a centralised system so that it can be utilised effectively.
However, the court said the PIL was not filed in the public interest but for publicity. The bench observed that the petitioner failed to provide any specific examples of the alleged misuse of funds. It stated that the petitioner has no case that he has approached the law enforcement agencies or district administration with any complaints of alleged misuse of funds as claimed.
“You want your name to be published in connection with the natural disaster, a good Samaritan having concern for the rest of the people," the court orally criticised the petitioner. The bench said the petitioner was simply wasting the court's time and that his actions were not benefiting anyone.
(With LiveLaw input)
