Petitioner challenged an order in contempt proceedings unrelated to her. Court held petitioner lacked locus standi as she was not a party to contempt case and order caused no grievance. Petition dismissed.
Original petition dismissed without prejudice to petitioner's rights to pursue appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.
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 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/8TH ASHADHA, 1938
OP(KAT).No. 86 of 2016 ()
(AGAINST ORDER DATED 03.06.2016 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 55 OF 2016 IN O.A. NO. 1894 OF 2015 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
PETITIONER(S):
R.JALAJAKUMARI
LABORATORY TECHNICIAN GRADE-I, TALUK HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL, CHIRYINKEEZHU, CHIRAYINKEEZHU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695304.
BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM
RESPONDENT(S):
OP(KAT).No. 86 of 2016 ()
:2:
WORKING AS LABORATORY TECHNICIAN GRADE-I, C.H.C. NENMARA, PALAKKAD-678 508.
R1 AND R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M. MUHAMMED SHAFI
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No. 86 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
| PETITIONER(S)' -------------- |
EXHIBITS --------- |
|---|---|
| P1 |
TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03.06.2016 IN C.P.(C) NO.55 OF 2016 IN O.A NO. 1894 OF 2015 OF THE HONOURABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. |
| P2 |
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 55 OF 2016 IN O.A. NO.1894 OF 2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8. |
| P3 | TRUE COPY OF O.A. 1894 OF 2015. |
| P4 |
TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.10.2015 IN O.A. NO. 1894 OF 2015. |
| P5 |
TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 19 TO 21 IN O.A. NO. 1894 OF 2015. |
| P6 |
TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8 IN O.A. NO. 1894 OF 2015. |
| P7 | TRUE COPY OF G.O(P) NO. 36/91/P&ARD DATED 02.12.1991. |
| P8 | TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO. 37/96/PARD DATED 07.11.1996. |
| P9 | TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO. 42/2012/P&ARD DATED 23.08.2012. |
| P10 |
TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 01.10.2014 PASSED IN O.P (KAT) NO.325 OF 2015. |
| P11 |
TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO. 1253/2015/H&FWD DATED 24.04.2015. |
| P12 | TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO. 741/2016/H&FWD DATED 02.03.2016. |
| P13 |
TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. EE4-30432/2016/DHS DATED 23.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| RESPONDENT(S)' -------------- |
EXHIBITS : NIL --------- |
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON &
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
This O.P. has been filed by the 5th respondent in O.A. No. 1894 of 2015, wherein an order was passed by the Tribunal on 09.02.2016, whereby certain directions were given to the concerned respondents as to the course of action to be pursued. The immediate cause of action cited by the petitioner, who has approached this Court, is in respect of Ext. P1 order dated 03.06.2016 in C.P.(C) Nos. 55 and 62 of 2016 arising from O.A. No. 1894 of 2015, observing that Anenxure MA5 order dated 02.03.2016 (copy of which has been produced as Ext. P12) cannot stand in the way of implementing the directions issued in the original application. This, according to the petitioner, has rendered said order/proceedings otiose and hence the same is liable to be intercepted, more so, when the petitioner was not a party to the contempt of court proceedings.
O.P.(KAT) No. 86 of 2016
: 2 :
“10. The learned counsel appearing for the PSC hands submitted that out of 21 persons advised already, 9 alone could join and 12 of them are remaining outside in view of the interim order passed in theses cases. We have also been informed that even before passing of the interim orders in these cases, some of the applicants who have been transferred out have been relieved also, leading to creation of vacancies for certain PSC hands to join.
O.P.(KAT) No. 86 of 2016
: 3 :
directed above and as far as completing claims for transfer in Grade I and for retention in Thiruvananthapuram District are concerned, that will be a matter to be considered separately at the time of general transfer or as and when the applications are received for transfer in respect of which we are not issuing any order now especially as, in O.A. No. 693 of 2014, there is already a direction.
The Original Applications are accordingly allowed. All the other questions raised between parties are left open.”
O.P.(KAT) No. 86 of 2016
: 4 :
The dispute is only with regard to the direction given by the Tribunal in the contempt case No. 55 of 2016 preferred against the verdict in O.A. by the applicants to the effect that Anenxure M.A.5 (Ext. P12) will not stand in the way of implementing the directions in the Original Applications.
O.P.(KAT) No. 86 of 2016
: 5 :
that the petitioner does not have any grievance with regard to Annexure M.A.5 (Ext. P2) as well.
O.P.(KAT) No. 86 of 2016
: 6 :
have any 'locus standi' to have approached this Court. The objection raised by the Registry is sustained. We find that the O.P. is not maintainable. It is dismissed accordingly, without prejudice to the rights and interests of the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.
sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN,
JUDGE
kmd
/True copy/
P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner has locus standi to challenge an order passed in a contempt of court proceedings involving other applicants.
Whether the observation that a specific government order should not hinder implementation renders the petition maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandrasekharan Pillay Vs. KrithivasanReferred¶41
Chandrasekharan Pillay Vs. Krithivasan [2001 KHC 381 = 2001 (2) KLT 179]
R.Jalajakumari
State of Kerala
Sanil Kumar
P. Shaji
Safeena Beevi
Sakeena Beevi
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Anil K. Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
