JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. Instant writ petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:- “i. to issue the writ of mandamus or any other writ, or any other direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate enquiry regarding the involvement of respondent 5 and 7 to 10 and the other named officers in the incidents reported in Exhibit P2; ii. to issue the writ of mandamus or any other writ, or any other direction to the respondent No.12 to conduct an immediate enquiry and to submit a Quick Verification Report before this Hon'ble Court regarding this incidents reported in Exhibit P2; iii. to issue the writ of mandamus or any other writ, or any other direction to the 6th respondent to submit a detailed further report on Exhibit P2 report filed by him; iv. to issue the writ of mandamus or any other writ, or any other directions to respondents 1 to 3 carry out the recommendations made by the 6th respondent including the registration of Occurrence Report on the incidents reported in Exhibit P2 and the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officers; v. to issue the writ of mandamus or any other writ, or any other direction to the directing the 1st respondent to form a special Team to investigate into the incidents reported in Exhibit P2 and against the involvement of respondents 5, and 7 to 10; vi. to issue the writ of mandamus or any other writ, or any other direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take all the measures and to restore the forest land which is illegally encroached by others after the publication of "Report of Vested Forest Committee 1975.” 2. Supporting the prayers sought for, petitioner has contended that, pursuant to media report regarding illegal felling of rose wood trees, Sri. N. T. Sajan IFS, Deputy Conservator of Forest (SF), Kozhikode, the 6th respondent, had submitted Ext. P2 preliminary report dated 15.02.2021, before Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Vigilance & Forest Intelligence), the 3rd respondent, reporting the roles of delinquent officers, and with recommendations to book a case, and to enquire into the incidents. It is further contended that the entire incidents are covered up by the officials. Being aggrieved, instant writ petition is filed. 3. On this day, when the matter came up for admission, on instructions from the Chief Conservator of Forest, Kannur, the 5th respondent, Mr. It is further contended that the entire incidents are covered up by the officials. Being aggrieved, instant writ petition is filed. 3. On this day, when the matter came up for admission, on instructions from the Chief Conservator of Forest, Kannur, the 5th respondent, Mr. Sandesh Raja, learned Special Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court the following facts:- “The Wayanad District has faced large scale felling of Rosewood trees from Revenue lands on the back drop of the Government Order GO(Rt) No. 261/2021/Revenue dated 24.10.2020 and the Circular No. Rev.U3/187/2019 dated 10.03.2020. The Range Officer. Meppady Range had received 14 applications for permissions to transport the felled timber. On enquiry it was found that the applicant Mr. Roji Augustine, owner of Surya Timber, could not produce a proof for the status of the timber and the Range Officer wrote to the Tehsildar for confirming whether the timber had come from private land and not property of the Government. However, no reply was received and the Range Officer Mr. Sameer M. K. who joined on 02.01.2021 went ahead and rejected all the applications as the status of timber (whether reserved or not) could not be ascertained. This outraged the applicant who is having stakes in Reporter Channel and connections with officials and politicians at higher levels. He and his allies started targeting the Range Officer, the DFO and their subordinate staffs. He gave false accusations through media that the Range Officer was involved in illegal felling and transport of timber from forest land in Manikunnumala and that a road was cut through the forest land. The matter was verified through the DFO South Wayand who reported that there was cutting permission issued for rosewood trees from private land in Manikurnumala by the previous Range Officer and that the accusations were made on that. The accusations on cutting of road was reported as baseless. On the night of 03.02.2021, the applicant managed to transport about 133 cu.m. of rosewood out of Wayanad and sold it to Malabar Timber Industries Karimugal. The news on illegal felling and smuggling of timber was publicised which made the owner of the Malabar Timber Industries doubtful on the status of the timber he received from Mr. Roji Augustine. He approached the Forest Department on 07.02.2021 and gave his statements and also gave his willingness to hand over the timber to Forest Department. The news on illegal felling and smuggling of timber was publicised which made the owner of the Malabar Timber Industries doubtful on the status of the timber he received from Mr. Roji Augustine. He approached the Forest Department on 07.02.2021 and gave his statements and also gave his willingness to hand over the timber to Forest Department. Shri. Sameer M. K. Proceeded to Karimugal and seized the timber booked an O. R. against the illegal transportation of timber and brought back the timber to Wayanad. Meanwhile, I constituted a special team comprising of Range Officer, Chedleth Range and Range Officer, Sultan Bathery to verify the source of timber from Surya Timber. They along with their staffs went to the premises of Surya Timber and verified the documents. It was revealed that the stock register was blank, the triplicate copies of Form IV issued for the timber was with them and did not have any timber stock in the premises. When the officers tried to take copy of the documents Mr. Roji Augustine along with his two brother muscled their way into their mansion grabbing the documents and shut themselves in threatening to take action against the staff. Since the accused were not cooperating, the team prepared a mahazar based on the evidences they saw. On 09.02.2021, one of the accomplices of the accused came to the Office of the DFO South Wayanad and submitted a copy of the Form IV which was received by the Senior Superintendent on a back date (on 06.02.2021). A copy of the receipt date was also given to them. This was a ploy to thwart the mahazar recorded by the officers. By getting a receipt on the Form IV copy on back date, they would prove that the mahazar recorded by the special investigation team was bogus. The staff had colluded with the accused in this case and I requested the CF (I & E) Kozhikode to conduct an investigation into the matter. The DFO Flying Squad Kozhikode along with his staffs conducted an enquiry into the matter and the Senior Superintendent confessed that he was blackmailed by the accused and coerced to receive the statement on a back date. The matter clearly shows that there was clear collusion from part of forest staffs with the accused and the accused would stoop to any levels to take their profit from illegal timber. The matter clearly shows that there was clear collusion from part of forest staffs with the accused and the accused would stoop to any levels to take their profit from illegal timber. The Range Officer who was mentally and physically exhausted took leave from Office for 13 days (3 days prefix and suffix extra) from 15.02.2021 to 27.02.2021. Meanwhile, the CF (I & E) Kozhikode Shri J. Devaprasad had entered into leave from the evening of 12.02.2021 and handed over the charge to Shri N. T. Sajan IFS CF (Social Forestry) Kozhikode. Shri N. T. Sajan IFS after assuming charge started enquiring into matters of allegations against Shri Sameer M. K. He called for the DFO Flying Squad Shri P. Dhanesh Kumar at 08.00 Am in the Office on 13.02.2021 which was a second Saturday and asked him to take actions against Shri Sameer M. K. since, the officer was at Thrissur on urgent personal matters he conveyed his inability to do so and that he would conduct a detailed enquiry later. He also informed that the case of felling and smuggling of Government owned rosewood trees from revenue lands of Wayanad was the major problem which has been entrusted by the PCCF (Vigilance) to investigate. Shri N. T. Sajan IFS as if propelled by some false propaganda was unsatisfied and proceeded himself to Wayanad. He went to the sites along with known accomplices of the accused Shri Roji Augustine and also recorded statement from the accomplices. He wanted to prove that the land from which the cutting permissions were given was forest land and to frame Shri Sameer M. K. for an offense. His actions were clearly suggesting collusion with the timber mafia. He continued his investigations and seizure of files from the Range Office Meppadi on Sunday and Monday (14.02.2021 & 15.02.2021). Since, the Officer was purposefully trying to frame the investigating officer to help the timber mafia, the matter was brought to the notice of the PCCF (Vigilance) and PCCF & HOFF on 13.02 2021. On the 15.02.2021, Shri Srikanth C. S. The driver of Range Officer, Meppadi, who was a temporary staff, was approached by a group of three persons in a Scorpio vehicle. On the 15.02.2021, Shri Srikanth C. S. The driver of Range Officer, Meppadi, who was a temporary staff, was approached by a group of three persons in a Scorpio vehicle. They proposed that if he gave false statements against Shri Sameer M. K. the Range Officer that he was involved in felling, loading and transport of timber from Manikunnumala, he would be rewarded handsomely. They also assured that he won't lose his job as Shri Sajan who was investigating the matter was their accomplice and he would ensure it. They further gave the offer that even if he lost the job they would give him a better one. The driver gave his statements on the incident which was recorded by the Range Officer, Meppadi. The collusion of Shri N T Sajan IFS with the timber mafia is evident from such acts. On the morning of 16.02.2021 at around 10.00 am Shri J. Devaprasad IFS joined back on duty as CF (I & E) Kozhikode after cutting short his leave by 1 (one) day. He assumed charge and informed his reporting officers as well as Shri N. T. Sajan IFS who was at Wayanad during the time. Instead of returning to his normal duties and handing over the investigation to Shri. Devaprasad IFS, he continued his false allegations and went ahead with preparation of a report even before the investigations were over. He was in a hurry to file a report and give it to the media channels like Reporter Channel in which the accused Shri Roji Augustine has stakes. The whole idea was to showcase a situation where in the Range Officer, DFO and Deputy Ranger who did their duties and stood by the law could be transferred out and they could get pliable officers in their place instead. Shri N. T Sajan IFS had not filed any report till Shri Devaprasad IFS took over charge. He did not hand over any documents or findings to the officer who replaced him. He gave statements and reports (which were not submitted) to the Reporter Channel (channel in which the accused Mr. Roji Augustine has stakes) and also to News 24 Channel in which the reporter was his close friend. He did not hand over any documents or findings to the officer who replaced him. He gave statements and reports (which were not submitted) to the Reporter Channel (channel in which the accused Mr. Roji Augustine has stakes) and also to News 24 Channel in which the reporter was his close friend. The false and bogus news defaming the Forest Department and Officers like Shri P. Ranjith Kumar (DFO South Wayanad), Shri Sameer M. K. (Range Officer) and Shri Abhilash K. P. (Deputy Range Officer) were broadcasted on the morning on 17.02.2021. The dubious and malafide intensions of one officer has led to this indigestible situation and their intensions were to support the illegal timber mafia alone. It is submitted that stringent disciplinary actions may be initiated against Shri N. T. Sajan IFS CF (Social Forestry) Kozhikode who has given away a false report which was never filed in capacity of CF (I & E) Kozhikode and flashed it to media without getting permissions from the Government. It is also humbly requested that no punitive actions may be initiated against the staffs including the Shri P. Ranjith Kumar (DFO South Wayanad), Shri Sameer M. K. (Range Officer) and Shri Abhilash K. P. (Deputy Range Officer Vythiri Forest Station) without verifying the facts.” 4. We have heard Mr. Shaijan C. George, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. Sandesh Raja, learned Special Government Pleader for the Forest Department. 5. Averments made in support of prayers sought for are disputed. It is well settled that disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. If for any reason, the petitioner is of the opinion that any offence is made out, he can always set the law in motion, by approaching the Police, or court of competent jurisdiction, by filing a criminal complaint. 7. On the question of how the petitioner could lay his hands on the letter dated 15.02.2021 of Mr. N.T. Sajan, IFS, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kozhikode, the 6th respondent, addressed to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Vigilance & Forest Intelligence), Forest Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram, the 3rd respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner got the letter from media. 8. That apart, petitioner seems to have filed the instant writ petition on the basis of visual media reports in Reporter channel and News 24 channel. 9. 8. That apart, petitioner seems to have filed the instant writ petition on the basis of visual media reports in Reporter channel and News 24 channel. 9. There are no materials to indicate as to whether the petitioner has taken any steps to obtain necessary documents from the Department, in support of the contentions made. Documents enclosed in the writ petition are Government Order No. 613/2021/GAD dated 09.02.2021, putting Mr. N. T. Sajan, IFS, Deputy Conservator of Forest in full charge of Conservator of Forests (SF), Kozhikode, the 6th respondent, as full additional charge of the post of Conservator of Forests (I&E), Kozhikode, during the leave period of Sri. J. Devaprasad, IFS, the 7th respondent, and a letter of Mr. N. T. Sajan, IFS, Deputy Conservator of Forests in full additional charge of Conservator of Forests (I&E), Kozhikode dated 15.02.2021, addressed to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Vigilance & Forest Intelligence), Forest Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram, the 3rd respondent. Other than the abovesaid documents, there is absolutely no material supporting the contentions raised. 10. Principles of law summarized in the matter of Public Interest Litigation is as hereunder:- In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v. C.K.Rajan & Others [ (2003) 7 SCC 546 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional promises. [See S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 494 , Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 161 and Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 )] (ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of the public vis-a-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. [See Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978) 4 SCC 104 and Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 ). (iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. In Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani (AIR 1979 SCC 468 ), it was held: "2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.” (See also Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. and Anr. v. B.D. Agarwal and Ors. (2003) 5 SCALE 138 ). (iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. [See Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344 , S.P. Gupta (supra), People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra), Dr. D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 378 and BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others [ (2002) 2 SCC 333 ]. [See Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344 , S.P. Gupta (supra), People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra), Dr. D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 378 and BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others [ (2002) 2 SCC 333 ]. (v) Whenthe Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (vi) Although procedural laws apply to PIL cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depends on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. [See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 and Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri and others (1986) 1 SCC 100]. (vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. (See Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India and Others 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251). (viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (See Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and Others (1987) 1 SCC 227 ). (ix) The Court in special situations may appoint a Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such Committee. (See Bandhua Mukti Morchai, Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar (1989) Suppl 1 SCC 644 and A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718 ). In Sachidanand Panday and Another v. State of West Bengal and others [ (1987) 2 SCC 295 ], this Court held,- “61. (See Bandhua Mukti Morchai, Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar (1989) Suppl 1 SCC 644 and A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718 ). In Sachidanand Panday and Another v. State of West Bengal and others [ (1987) 2 SCC 295 ], this Court held,- “61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action on when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extent its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the need, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such is required. But this does mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants." This Court, in an unreported judgment dated 30.06.2020 in B. Radhakrishna Menon v. State of Kerala and Ors. [W.P.(C) No.12109 of 2020], at paragraph 45, held thus: “45. Placing reliance on the above decisions, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a public interest writ petition which lacks bona fides, lack of particulars satisfying the requirements of a PIL, deserves to be dismissed with costs. Having regard to decisions considered in Mythri Residents Association v. Secretary, Tripunithura Municipality and Others, [2019 KHC 832], it has been summarised by the journal thus: “(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. (9) The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. (10) Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened by arrears. (11) Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. (12) This Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. (13) Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. (14) It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. (15) This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. (16) There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. (15) This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. (16) There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. (17) Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. (18) This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. (19) This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. (20) Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. (21) Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. (22) Courts protect the rule of law. (23) There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space.” 11. Going by the principles of law on Public Interest Litigation, we are of the view that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of a Public Interest Litigation. That apart, facts averred are disputed. 12. It is trite law that writ petition cannot be entertained on the basis of internal correspondence. Reference can be made to few decisions:- (i) In Bachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 395 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “11. The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such an order. Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary. The order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Art. 166 and then it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up, the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. …............ 13. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up, the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. …............ 13. Thus, it is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order before the State and that person can be bound by that order. For, until the order is communicated to the person affected by it, it would be open to the Council of Ministers to consider the matter over and over again and, therefore, till its communication the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character.” (ii) The views expressed in Bachhittar Singh's case (cited supra), have been followed in Laxminarayan R.Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 413 , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held,-a right created under an order of a statutory authority must be communicated to the person concerned, so as to confer an enforceable right. (iii) The said proposition of law has once again reaffirmed in Sethi Auto Service Station v. Delhi Development Authority, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 180 , where, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that internal notings and departmental communications between Government Agencies do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order, unless it culminates into an executable order, by communication to the person concerned, affecting his right or conferring any legal right. Reliance can also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Vartak Labour Union (2), reported in (2011) 4 SCC 200 .” In the light of the above, we are of the view that, writ petition does not merit any consideration. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.