Appeal against dismissal of a writ petition challenging orders shifting a Unit Run Canteen. The Court held no reason to interfere as the challenge was limited to Exts. P4 and P5, which were policy decisions, and the petitioners raised no grievance regarding employment rights.
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
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2016/13TH ASHADHA, 1938
WA.No. 367 of 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP 1021/2013 IN W.P. NO. 19589 OF 2013 DATED 08-01-2014 AND JDUGMENT DATED 09.10.2013 IN W.P.C NO. 19589 OF 2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
SRI.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
W.A. NO. 367 OF 2014
:2:
R1-9,11 BY ADV. SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON &
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
Grievance is against the verdict passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the relief sought for to cause Exts. P4 and P5 to be set aside, was declined to be acted upon.
W.A. No. 367 of 2014.
: 2 :
W.A. No. 367 of 2014. : 3 :
and the writ petitioners were not justified in raising any challenge; nor was there any 'locus standi' for them. After hearing both the sides, the learned single Judge observed that the decision taken by the Department to shift the Canteen being a 'policy decision', the Court would not be justified in interfering with such matters. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as per the judgment dated 09.10.2013.
W.A. No. 367 of 2014.
: 4 :
no interim order of stay had been granted by this Court. The learned counsel for the appellants however submits that the job of several persons has been quite adversely affected because of the course pursued by the Department and that nothing has been mentioned in the judgment or in the order passed in the review. This Court finds that absolutely no such case was raised by the appellants/writ petitioners in the writ petition, where the reliefs sought for were in the following terms:
“ i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction, quashing Exhibit P4 and P5 after calling for the records leading to the same;
ii) To issue a writ or mandamus refraining the respondents from implementing Ext. P4 and P5.
And
iii) To pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
If at all any grievance was there with regard to the right of employment or such other incidental aspects, it was always open for the writ petitioners to have it projected by way of appropriate proceedings then and there. In so far as the challenge was only in
W.A. No. 367 of 2014.
: 5 :
respect of Exts. P4 and P5, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the verdict passed by the learned single Judge. Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.
sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN,
JUDGE
kmd
/True copy/
P.A. to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the single Judge's verdict dismissing the writ petition challenging the government orders shifting the Unit Run Canteen as a policy decision.
NCC Group Unit Run Canteen Employees' Association West Hill Barracks Calicut
Chandan P.V.
Union of India
Chief of the Army Staff
Quarter Master General Integrated HQ of MOD
General Officer Commanding Headquarters Southern Command
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Anil K. Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
