The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ appeal filed by a father whose son committed suicide. The court found no convincing evidence to establish that the death resulted from harassment by medical examiners, thereby upholding the Single Judge's decision.
Writ appeal dismissed without prejudice to rights to approach other forums.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932
WA.No. 2077 of 2009 -----------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.39424/2003 DATED 5.6.2009 ....................
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
--------------------------N.ANIRUDHAN.MLA, ARUNIMA, THAZHAM, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.BANI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR R6 BY ADV.SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
W.A. No. 2077 of 2009
-----------------------------------------Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
The son of the appellant 'decided' to bid farewell to this world on 3.4.2002 and committed suicide, allegedly due to harassment at the hands of respondents 5 and 6; which in turn was required to be compensated by the appellant by filing W.P.(C) No.39424 of 2003.
W.A.No.2077 of 2009
was that his son was harassed to the maximum by the examiners, namely the respondents 5 and 6, and it was because of the said incident that the boy was compelled to quit the examination held in the afternoon and commit suicide. Reliance was sought to be placed on Exts.P3 and P5 reports, wherein some reference is made with regard to the conduct of the 5th respondent. The matter was considered at length by the learned Single Judge, who observed that, but for Exts.P3 and P5, there was absolutely no material or evidence before the Court to arrive at a conclusion that the suicide committed by the son of the appellant/petitioner was because of the harassment at the hands of respondents 5 and 6. It was also observed that, eventhough the 6th respondent supported the version of the writ petitioner initially, he backed out later. It is further mentioned therein that Ext.P3 suggested further enquiry and in the absence of any further material, no positive finding could be arrived at, so as to award damages against respondents 5 and 6. Accordingly, interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed, which in turn forms the subject matter of this writ appeal.
W.A.No.2077 of 2009
learned Senior Government Pleader for the first respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent University, at length and also on going through the materials on record, this Court finds that there is no convincing evidence so as to substantiate the averments made by the appellant to arrive at a conclusion that the suicide committed by the son of the appellant was because of the harassment by the external examiner, i.e. the 5th respondent. This is a matter which requires to be substantiated by raising specific pleadings and adducing evidence before the appropriate forum.
In the said circumstances, we find no tenable ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the appellant to approach other appropriate forum, if otherwise sustainable in law.
J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice
P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge
vns
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal against the dismissal of a petition claiming compensation for harassment leading to suicide requires interference by the High Court.
N.Anirudhan
State of Kerala
Kerala University
Principal, TD Medical College, Alappuzha
Dr.Dolis
Dr.Ramakrishnan
J.Chelameswar
P.R.Ramachandra Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
