Disposed

Gail (India) Ltd. v. Komalavally

Kerala HC11 Dec 2017WA/185/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ appeal filed by GAIL (India) Ltd. and the Competent Authority against a judgment ordering them to provide a hearing opportunity. The Court clarified that specific observations in the lower judgment regarding Article 300A were case-specific, not a general declaration of law, and directed orders in line with the single judge.

What did the court decide?

Directed orders be passed by the competent authority as ordered by the learned single judge.

Gail (India) Ltd. Vs Komalavally — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶6

WA.No. 185 of 2017 IN WP(C).39054/2015

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 39054/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-11-2016

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:

¶9

GAIL (INDIA) LTD.,

¶10

GAIL BHAVAN, 16, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI110066

¶11

COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR KERALA,

¶12

GAIL (INDIA) LTD., 10TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE ROAD, KOCHI-682011

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL)

¶14

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 1ST RESPONDENT:

¶15

KOMALAVALLY,

¶16

AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.VENU, THERKAVIL, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, KONATHUKUNNU P.O., THRISSUR DISTGRICT-680123

¶17

JITHIN VENU,

¶18

AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.VENU, THERKAVIL, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, KONATHUKUNNU P.O., THRISSUR DISTGRICT-680123

¶19

WA.No. 185 of 2017 -2-

¶20

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI-110001

¶21

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.HOOD R1-R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.ISHA R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.AMAL KASHA BY SRI.B.PREM KUMAR, CGC

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ANTONY DOMINIC, Ag. C.J. &

¶24

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶25

W. A. No.185 of 2017

¶26

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2017

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Antony Dominic, Ag. C.J.

¶29

aHeard both sides.

¶30

This appeal is filed by respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.

¶31

(C) No.39054 of 2015. The writ petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein seeking a declaration that the appellants cannot acquire the right of user in land without serving on the affected person a copy of the order passed under Section 5(2) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, and for other related reliefs. The writ petition was disposed of directing the second appellant to provide an opportunity of hearing to respondents 1 and 2 and to pass orders in the manner as ordered therein. It is this judgment which is

W. A. No.185 of 2017

-2-

under challenge.

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we find that, according to the appellants, the controversy between the appellants and the party respondents have been amicably sorted out and they are more prejudiced by certain observations contained in the judgment under appeal, which are rendered in the context of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is pointed out that these observations might turn out to be prejudicial to the appellants in other proceedings and it is therefore, that the appeal is pressed.

¶36

According to us, the observations made by the learned single Judge, as contained in the judgment under appeal, were made in the facts of a particular case and are not meant to be taken as general declaration of law to govern other cases. Facts being so, the aforesaid clarification should redress the grievance of the appellants.

¶37

Therefore, clarifying the position as above, this

¶38

-3-

¶39

W. A. No.185 of 2017

¶40

appeal is disposed of directing that orders be passed by the competent authority as ordered by the learned single Judge.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

ANTONY DOMINIC ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶45

kns/-

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

P.S. TO JUDGE

Gail (India) Ltd. v. Komalavally

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gail (India) Ltd. v. Komalavally

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

Jimmy Joseph Vs Sukumaran

K.G.Muraleedhara Menon Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Janaki Amma

V.K.Nityanandan Vs S. Ratnakumaran, Managing Director, Kerala State Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Federation Ltd.

P. Gangadhara Alva Vs Icar - Central Plantation Crops Research Institute

Palakkad Jilla Bus Operators Association Vs Government of Kerala