The Kerala High Court has delivered a sharp rebuke to six BJP councillors from Thrissur and their lawyer, slapping them with a total penalty of ₹10 lakh for dragging the judiciary into what the bench called a battle of personal grudges rather than genuine legal grievance.
A division bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice PV Balakrishnan dismissed their appeals, finding that the litigation over a Corporation-owned tourist home was nothing more than a weapon of political animosity. The councillors were ordered to pay ₹5 lakh collectively to the court’s Mediation and Conciliation Centre, while their lawyer must contribute another ₹5 lakh to the Bar Association.
The judges minced no words, noting that the petitions reeked of “bias and personal agenda” against fellow councillors and the Mayor. They stressed that the courtroom was not a stage for settling political scores, but a forum for real grievances recognized under law.
The dispute revolved around the lease of a tourist home previously held by licensee Omana Asokan. After multiple failed auctions, the Corporation awarded the property in 2022 to bidder Janeesh PS, whose offer of ₹7.25 lakh was later raised to ₹7.5 lakh, along with a commitment to invest ₹3 crore of his own funds into renovation without reimbursement.
Despite the Corporation Council ratifying this decision, councillors Vinod Pollanchery, Poornima Suresh, Aathira V, Radhika NV, Niji KG, and N Prasad launched a series of challenges. Their efforts ranged from writ petitions to complaints before the Ombudsman, followed by appeals to the government under Section 57 of the Kerala Municipality Act. Each attempt failed, but the councillors and their lawyer persisted, filing yet another round of writ appeals before the High Court.
The bench, however, found no fault in the Corporation’s process. It observed that the contractor had fulfilled all conditions, including bank guarantees and rent payments, and that the repeated litigation was a deliberate attempt to stall the project and obstruct the Corporation’s ability to serve the public.
Calling out this misuse of judicial time, the Court not only dismissed the appeals but also imposed the hefty fine to drive home its disapproval of agenda-driven litigation.
