Partly allowed

Usha Nanthini M. v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority-Cum-Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC21 Feb 2018WA/455/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the Single Judge’s order dismissing a petition for replacing a stage carriage and imposing Rs.50,000 exemplary costs for false affidavits. The High Court upheld dismissal but reduced costs to Rs.25,000 due to appellant’s penitence and financial constraints, noting she was barred from equitable relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal dismissed; exemplary costs reduced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.25,000.

Usha Nanthini M. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1939

¶6

WA.No. 455 of 2018 IN WPC. 39581/2017

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 39581/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 15-01-2018

¶8

APPELLANT(S)

¶9

1. USHA NANTHINI M., W/O. P.K.V. MOHAN, PARAIKKAL HOUSE, ATHIPOTTA POST, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL

¶11

SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY-CUM-REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (RTO) PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶14

2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SURIN GEORGE IPE

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WA.No. 455 of 2018 IN WPC. 39581/2017

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶20

I : TRUE COPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE, BEARING REG.NO.KL-05-P-4010

//TRUE COPY//

P A TO JUDGE

JJJ

ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. &

¶25

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶26

Writ Appeal No. 455 of 2018

¶27

Dated: 21^st February 2018

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶30

Usha Nanthini M, a transport operator, wanted to replace a 2015-model stage carriage with a 2003-model stage carriage.

¶31

But the authorities concerned did not respond to her application. So she filed WP (C) No.39581 of 2015.

¶32

On 15.01.2018 a learned Single Judge dismissed the

¶33

writ petition with exemplary costs—of Rs.50,000/-. Aggrieved, Usha Nanthini filed this writ appeal.

¶34

Heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader.

¶35

After going through the impugned judgment and the material in the writ appeal, we find that the appellant faces a grave charge—suppressing the material facts and misleading

¶36

W.A. No.455/2018

¶37

- 2 -

¶38

the Court. In fact, Usha Nanthini herself, on the learned Single Judge’s direction, filed an affidavit pleading that she may be pardoned “if any wrong information is made in the writ petition.” She pleaded with the Court to permit her to withdraw the writ petition. The learned Single Judge refused—rightly so.

¶39

The impugned judgment cites numerous judgments and holds that filing false affidavits, or making false statements on oath in courts, amounts to striking at the Rule of Law. And this pernicious practice must be curbed with a heavy hand, observes the learned Single Judge. Treating misrepresentation of facts and manipulation of judicial process as reprehensible, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, imposed exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/-.

¶40

We have no occasion to go into the merits of the appeal, for Usha Nanthini’s conduct disentitles her to any equitable relief; that is, adjudication under Article 226 of the

W.A. No.455/2018

- 3 -

Constitution.

So we focus on the costs imposed.

¶45

First, we entirely agree with the learned Single Judge.

¶46

The judicial proceedings are sacrosanct, and no person would be allowed, particularly, in public law remedy, to abuse the judicial process. In summary proceedings, as the writ proceedings are, the Court places implicit faith on the parties and their pleadings. It does not indulge in any fact finding or roving enquiry of what has been asserted. After all, Article 226 of the Constitution of India espouses equity jurisprudence, more than anything else.

¶47

Here, we find no justifiable cause to interfere with the impugned judgment. But the learned Counsel for the appellant has fervently pleaded that Usha Nanthini has approached the Court bona fide and has candidly placed on record whatever facts and evidence were at her disposal. She

¶48

W.A. No.455/2018

¶49

- 4 -

¶50

has also urged that the appellant faces impecunious circumstances and needs to be viewed leniently.

¶51

Though we disfavour disturbing the learned Single

¶52

Judge’s discretion in imposing exemplary costs, we only propose to examine the mitigating circumstances, if any. The learned counsel pleads Usha Nanthini’s financial constraints and contrition of heart. As the plea appears to be genuine and the appellant contrite, to mitigate the rigour of costs, we reduce

¶53

them by half: Rs.25,000/-. No other findings are disturbed.

¶54

Thus the appeal stands disposed of.

¶55

Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶56

Sd/DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶57

jjj 21/02/2018

Usha Nanthini M. v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority-Cum-Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Nanthini M. v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority-Cum-Regional Transport Officer

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

T.S. Joy Vs Mrs. Sarada Sampath

Palazhi Mahallu Muslim Jama-Ath Vs M.K.Sadique

N.C.Varghese Vs C.F.Robert, Managing Director, the State Farming Corporation Kerala Ltd.

Icici Bank Vs Sajeev.T.R

Jasmine Regi Vs Manjalloor Grama Pancyayath

Joseph Chacko Alias Sabu Chacko Vs the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board