Disposed

State of Kerala v. a.Hassanar

Kerala HC11 Feb 2016WA/1150/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal against a Single Judge ruling enforcing a Lok Adalath award, the High Court held the award was not a final determination of rights as it merely sought suggestions for revision. The court directed the authority to consider the claim and pass a revised legal order. The appeal was disposed of with specific directions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Government to consider the respondent's claim in the light of the Lok Adalath suggestions and issue a revised order within three months.

State of Kerala Vs a.Hassanar — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/22ND MAGHA, 1937

¶6

WA.No. 1150 of 2009 IN WP(C).30807/2008

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30807/2008 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 11-11-2008

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:-:

¶9

THE STATE OF KERALA

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶11

HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

THE HEAD MASTER NALUCHIRA GOVERNMENT U.P.SCHOOL, THOTTAPPALLY ALAPPUZHA.

¶13

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RENNIE STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMBIL

¶15

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶16

A.HASSANAR, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.ABDULLAKUNJU, NAZEA NIVAS, THOTTAPPALLY P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.MINIMOLE R BY SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WA.No. 1150 of 2009

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

ANNEXURE A : COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.1223/08/G.EDN. DATED 10.3.2008.

¶22

ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER.

¶23

ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF R.P.NO.97/2009.

¶24

// TRUE COPY //

¶25

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶26

ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.

¶27

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶28

Writ Appeal No.1150 of 2009

¶29

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Antony Dominic, J.

¶32

Respondents in W.P.(C)30807/08, who were also unsuccessful in R.P.97/09, are the appellants.

¶33

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed the writ petition praying for an order requiring the appellants to implement Ext.P4, purported to be an award passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Alappuzha in Lok Adalath Case No.376/06. By judgment, dated 11^th November, 2008 the writ petition was disposed by the learned Single Judge directing the first appellant herein to see that steps are taken for implementation of Ext.P4 at the earliest. It is also clarified that the second appellant, shall be bound by Ext.P4 and shall take steps to see that the direction in Ext.P4 is made effective. Though the appellants herein sought review of the judgment by filing R.P.97/09, the learned Single Judge, disposed of the review petition directing the third appellant to see that steps are taken for the implementation of Ext.P4. It is in these circumstances, the writ appeal is filed.

¶34

Writ Appeal No.1150 of 2009

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent writ petitioner.

¶37

As we have already stated, the writ petition has been filed on the premise that Ext.P4 is an award passed under Section 20(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which, inter alia, provide that every award made by the Lok Adalath shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute. Though it is true that Ext.P4 has attained finality, reading of Ext.P4 shows that the claim of the respondent, which was the subject matter of the dispute, was one for a pathway through the compound of Government U.P. School, Naluchira in Alappuzha district. After discussing various suggestions, in Ext.P4 the Lok Adalath ordered that with a view to arrive at an amicable settlement of the dispute, the Government are requested to consider the suggestions made by the respondent and issue revised order. Therefore, Ext.P4 did not finally determine the rights of the parties, which is a condition requirement for a valid award to be passed in terms of Section 20(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

¶38

Writ Appeal No.1150 of 2009

¶39

: 3 :

¶40

The implementation of Ext.P4 is only that the Government of Kerala will have to consider the rival suggestions that are mentioned in Ext.P4 and issue an order revising Ext.P3, Government Order, dated 24.4.2006. In such circumstances, all that is required in this appeal is to clarify that the Government shall consider the claim of the respondent, in accordance with law and in the light of the suggestions mentioned in Ext.P4 and pass orders thereon on the claim of the respondent for a pathway through the compound wall of the Government U.P. School, Naluchira.

¶41

Therefore, this appeal is disposed of modifying the directions in the judgment under appeal and directing that the first respondent to decide the matter as ordered in Ext.P4 and issue a revised order in accordance with law. This the Government shall do, as early as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶43

SD/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE

¶44

The words “first respondent” occurring in the concluding portion of the judgment dated 11.2.2016 in W.A.No.1150/09 is corrected and read as “third appellant” as per order dated 07/06/2016 in I.A.No.400/2016 in W.A.No.1150/2009.

¶45

Sd/Registrar (Judicial)

State of Kerala v. a.Hassanar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. a.Hassanar

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

Roshan Vs State of Kerala

V.T.Selvarajan Vs Bagmur Finance Corpn.

Travancore Aluminium Fabricators Vs Dhanalakshmy Bank Ltd.

T.Haridas Vs State of Kerala

Rani Mathew Vs Rosy Reena George

Thomas v.Kurian Vs Abdu Rahiman