Divided Bench dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order that the writ petition was not maintainable against a private trust. Employees of private establishments facing discipline lack writ remedy here.
The writ appeal failed and was dismissed, restoring the impugned judgment.
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.N.RAVINDRAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1939
WA.No.532 of 2018 IN WPC.14246/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)14246/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 17.1.2018
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
RAJESH BABU AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. RAJENDRAN KAMBAKKARAN, AMBALAMADATHIL, AROOR P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 534.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN H.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. AROOR PUTHUVARANADU DEVASWOM (PVT) TRUST, PALLIYARAKKAVU, AROOR P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 534, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.RAJENDRAN KAMBAKKARAN.
2. DR. RAJEEV,
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN KAMPAKKARAN, AMRUTHAM(KANDATHIPARAMBIL) AROOR P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 534.
3. BHUVANENDRAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN KAMPAKKARAN, KANDATHIPARAMBIL, AROOR P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 534.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR R2 & R3 BY DR.V.N.SANKARJEE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
vpv
P.N. Ravindran & R.Narayana Pisharadi, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - W.A.No.532 of 2018
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th March, 2018
JUDGMENT
P.N.Ravindran, J.
The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14246 of 2017 is the appellant herein. He had in the said writ petition challenged Ext.P1 letter dated 3.4.2017 issued by the Secretary of the first respondent Trust placing him under suspension. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ petition is not maintainable. In our considered opinion, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment. If the petitioner's contention is accepted, employees of private establishments facing disciplinary action will rush to this court with a writ petition. A writ will lie only against the State and its instrumentalities and also against authorities discharging statutory and public duties. It has been held that even in cases where a public servant acts as the arbitrator, the award passed by such an arbitrator cannot be challenged in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – vide Moideenkutty v. Divisional Forest Officer (1988 (1) KLT 443) In such circumstances, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment. The remedy of the appellant lies
WA 532/2018
2
elsewhere.
The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(P.N. Ravindran, Judge)
(R.Narayana Pisharadi, Judge)
kav/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be maintainable against a private trust for disciplinary suspension of an employee.
Whether Article 226 extends to disputes involving private establishments.
Whether the judgment dismissing the writ petition on maintainability grounds is correct.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Moideenkutty v. Divisional Forest OfficerApplied¶24
Moideenkutty v. Divisional Forest Officer
Rajesh Babu
Aroor Puthuvaranadu Devaswom (Pvt) Trust
Dr. Rajeev
Bhuvandran
P.N. Ravindran
R.Narayana Pisharadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
