Abdul Gafoor. Vs. State of KeralA.

.....3 accordingly. mr. narsimha submits that the writ petition ought to have been dismissed at the threshold by the high court and controversy pertaining to a service matter which could not be filed in a writ petition styled as a public interest litigation. tirumala temple. the high court has nullified the resolution dated 21st july, 2009 and the consequential order dated 1st august, 2009 holding the same to be contrary to rule 13 of the 1989 rules. rule 2 of the aforesaid rules provides as under:- the high court, in our opinion, was in error, in relying on rule 13 to nullify the appointment of the appellant. the high court has committed a serious error in permitting respondent no.1 to pursue the writ petition as a public interest litigation. the parameters within which public interest litigation can be entertained by this court and the high court, have been laid down and reiterated by this court in a series of cases. the high court ought to have satisfied itself with regard to the credentials of respondent no.1 before entertaining the writ petition, styled as public interest litigation. the writ petition was undoubtedly moved by motives other than what was stated in the writ petition. respondent no.1 had failed to satisfy any of the criteria which would have enabled him to move the high court by way of a public interest litigation. the high court failed to notice that the writ petition was not maintainable for a variety of reasons. this court in the case of vasudeo vishwanath saraf vs. more so when there is a statutory provision for appeal to the higher court in the hierarchy of courts in order to enable the superior court or the appellate court to know or to be apprised of the reasons which impelled the court to pass 7 1986 (4) scc 31 the order in question. .....employed in muscat and he has to rejoin duty before 17.10.2010 and he would undertake that his counsel will be present at the time of examination and evidence could be recorded in his absence and instead of the petitioner, questions under section 313 of code of criminal procedure would be answered by the counsel and he is prepared to appear before the court as and when required and in such circumstances, exemption is to be granted. 2. by annexure-a1 order, learned magistrate dismissed the petition holding that petitioner had originally appeared and thereafter absconded and then again appeared warranting a denova trial and he was released on bail and the denova trial had started and the reason for the delay in trial is failure of the petitioner to appear and if petitioner is not appearing at the time of examination of the witnesses, it would cause prejudice to both the accused and the prosecution and the case being a warrant trial case, exemption cannot be granted. this petition is filed under section 482 of code of criminal procedure to quash annexure-a1 order and to grant exemption as sought for. 3. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor were heard. 4. in the petition filed by the petitioner before the learned magistrate, in his affidavit, petitioner has undertaken that on his behalf his counsel will appear and evidence could be recorded in his absence in the presence of his counsel and he has authorised the counsel to cross-examine the witnesses and also to answer the questions under section 313 of code of criminal procedure and he will appear as and when required by the court. he has also undertaken that he will not dispute his identity at the time of trial. 5. considering the nature of the affidavit filed and the undertaking of the petitioner that his counsel will appear on all the posting dates and he will appear as and when required and will not dispute his identity, i do not find it in the interest of justice to.....