Building prima facie case
The Court observed that Kakkad had placed on record documentary proof substantiating the allegations against Khan restraining him from approaching his land.
To substantiate the allegations that Khan had committed encroachment and violated the Forest Act and Matheran Eco Sensitive notification, Kakkad placed applications which had been made to the concerned forest department and the Collector along with the annexures and show cause notices issued by the forest department, the order recorded.
"The defendant (Kakkad) contended that, he is a whistleblower to the illegal acts done by the plaintiff (Khan) and he made imputations in public interest by taking reasonable precautions by producing documentary material in support of the same. Therefore, at preliminary stage, I find the defendant's plea of justification is more probable than the prima facie case of the plaintiff," the judge reasoned.
With these observations, the Court concluded that no case had been made out for interim relief in favour of Khan, and hence the application was rejected.
"As the plaintiff (Khan) failed to explain innuendo how it relates to him and the defendant (Kakkad) raised the plea of justification which is prima facie supported by documentary evidence, therefore... I am not inclined to grant injunction," the order stated.
Comments
Post a Comment