Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA versus C. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, POSTAL ASSISTANT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


UNION OF INDIA v. C. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, POSTAL ASSISTANT - WP(C) No. 24415 of 2005 [2005] RD-KL 124 (9 September 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24415 of 2005

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRSENTED BY SECRETARY
... Petitioner

2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,

3. THE POST MASTER GENERAL,

4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF POSTAL

Vs

1. C.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, POSTAL ASSISTANT
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG

For Respondent :SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated : 09/09/2005

O R D E R

.PL 58 .TM 5 .BM 5

M.RAMACHANDRAN & M.N.KRISHNAN,JJ.

j W.P.(C).NO.24415 OF 2005 - S j

Dated this the 9th day of September,2005.



J U D G M E N T

j .SP 2 ((HDR 0 [WP(C) NO.24415 of 2005] -:#:- )) .HE 1

Ramachandran,J.

Union of India and others are the petitioners herein and they are aggrieved about Ext.P2 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5-8-2005 in O.A.No.590 of 2005. The first ground taken in this writ petition filed herein is as following:-

" The Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal was passed in i .SP 1 violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the Tribunal did not give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners herein and hence is liable to be set aside. The Tribunal erred in not granting an opportunity to the petitioners to file reply statement. The Tribunal did not even grant breathing time to the petitioners to submit the instructions to their Counsel so as to apprise the Tribunal of the true facts." .SP 2

2. The above contentions factually cannot be contradicted. The respondent who was the applicant before the Tribunal is also disabled from depending the order. As we can apprehend the situation that when at the time of admission, the Tribunal was prepared to grant the reliefs prayed for, he could not have raised any objection although the prudence seems required that he was to make a request to the Tribunal that if there were convincing facts raised, the matter should have been admitted in files and reliefs could have been granted by interim order.

3. We are not going into the merits of the contentions raised as it is for the Tribunal to come to a conclusion in one way or other after hearing the version of either side when the matter is finally disposed of. Under Section 19(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, if the Tribunal is satisfied on receiving an application, after such enquiry as it was necessary that the application is fit for adjudication, it has to be admitted, but only in case where the Tribunal was not satisfied, they were to summarily reject the application after giving the reasons. The summary was only for rejection and not for grant of prayers.

4. Adv.Mr.M.K.Hariraj appearing for the respondent submits that normally, thee scope of the section is to examine the aspects which are to be borne in mind, prescribed by Sections 14 and 21 etc. and seldom, it would have been permissible for the Tribunal to go to the merits at threshold. Although he was a beneficiary of the orders, he appreciates the stand that had been taken by the third respondent when he submits that there has been some arbitrariness as right of the opposite side for defending the case has practically been taken away.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside Ext.P2 order and direct the Tribunal to take up the application de novo and since there is prima facie question of law to be taken notice of after formally issuing notice to the respondent, the application may be heard on merits on an early date. The right of the applicant for moving for interim orders also is to be protected. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. .JN

(M.RAMACHANDRAN,JUDGE)

(M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE)

((HDR 0 )) .HE 2 mbs/ .PI -TRUE COPY-

P.A.TO JUDGE.

.PA .SP 2

(M.RAMACHANDRAN & M.N.KRISHNAN,JJ

W.P (C).NO. OF 2005 -

J U D G M E N T

DATED:2005.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.