Allowed

Sathyan A.V. v. Government of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Aug 2008WP(C)/9265/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition quashing a one-line administrative order denying exemption to the petitioner for promotion. The order was struck down for lack of reasons given under the RTI Act, 2005 and violating Article 14, directing the Government to pass fresh orders after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 is quashed; the Government shall reconsider the issue and pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing within three months.

Sathyan A.V. Vs Government of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 9265 of 2008(C)

PETITIONER:

SATHYAN A.V, PAYYOLI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, F.1267,MELADI,KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KOZHIKODE.

¶15

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) No.9265/2008

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

Ext.P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST
Ext.P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION FOR THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 27-9-2007.
Ext.P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR DATED 7-3-2008
Ext.P4 series	ORDERS GRANTING EXEMPTION TO VARIOUS EMPLOYEES
Ext.P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16- 5-2008
Ext.P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-1-2008
Ext.P7 series	TRUE COPIES OF THE ORDERS

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL

¶22

// TRUE COPY //

¶23

P.A.TO JUDGE.

¶24

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶25

W.P.(C) NO.9265 OF 2008 (C)

¶26

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 26^th day of August, 2008

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner, an employee of a co-operative society, challenges Ext.P6. At the outset, it is clarified that this judgment is being issued on the main issue that Ext.P6 is a non-speaking order, leaving open all other issues.

¶29

The petitioner's employer, a co-operative society, resolved and requested for exemption from possessing a qualification, for the purpose of promoting the petitioner in its service. The Registrar forwarded that request to the Government. The Government sent impugned Ext.P6 to the Registrar stating that it has been decided that exemption need not be granted. It is single line order, a cryptic one, stating no reason for that decision.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.9265/2008

¶31

¶32

The request was for exercising a power of exemption. To grant or not, is within the power of the authority empowered to grant in terms of law. But, it is of the core principles of administrative law, that a

¶33

decision has to contain its reasons. This is on account of different reasons. One is that, if the aggrieved person carries the matter to a higher authority, or requests for judicial review of that decision, fundamentally, reasons and lawful procedures are those which will sustain the decision making process and ultimately the decision. These principles of administrative law, which have grown with civilisation, have now found expression in Sections 3 and 4(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as “RTI Act”. Section 3 of the RTI Act provides that all citizens shall have the right to information subject to the provisions of that Act.

¶34

Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act provides that every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected

¶35

W.P.(C) No.9265/2008

¶36

¶37

persons. Indisputably, the Government and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies are public authorities as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. It goes without saying that the impugned Ext.P6 order is one which affects the writ petitioner's claim for promotion to higher post, to which his employer society has agreed. Therefore, the petitioner has the statutory right in terms of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act to be provided with the reasons for the administrative decision of the Government that has led to the issuance of Ext.P6 order. Bereft of that, Ext.P6 is issued in infraction of that provision of the RTI Act. This, in turn, results in Ext.P6 being an arbitrary exercise of authority, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, since it results in negation of the Rule of Law and thereby, infraction of the fundamental right to equality before law and equal protection of the laws, guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

W.P.(C) No.9265/2008

¶39

¶40

Time has come when the prestigious and salutary principles of administrative law have found expression in provisions like the one noticed in this judgment, from the RTI Act. They are laws to be always remembered and obeyed by the administrative, or other, authorities, who are public authorities.

¶41

For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed, quashing Ext.P6 without expressing anything on merits. The Government shall take up the matter and reconsider the issue and pass fresh orders, after affording the petitioner and his employer an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶43

skr/26/8

Sathyan A.V. v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathyan A.V. v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Mohamed Subair.H Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Krishna Pillai Vs the District Co-Operative Bank

Administrator, Chethala Service Co-Op.Ba Vs Shri.Dinesan.R.

Thooneri Narayanan Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

K.Janakikutty and Another Vs Perinthalmanna Taluk Rural Housing Co-Op