Allowed

Vijayakumar v. the Commissioner

Kerala HC15 Dec 2021WP(C)/28922/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a clause in a hearing notice of the Malabar Devaswom Board that implied a pre-emptive decision. It directed the Commissioner to pass a fresh order based on reasons, reflecting application of mind to contentions, including preliminary issues on the show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

Deleted a specific sentence in the hearing notice and directed the Commissioner to pass a fresh reasoned order within the defined procedure.

Vijayakumar Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶7

1943

¶8

W.P.(C)NO.28922 OF 2021

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 73 YEARS S/O.LATE MALATHY NESYAR, PALLIYANA HOUSE, ANNAKARA P.O, POOVATHUR (VIA) ANNAKARA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR 680 508

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

M.P.ASHOK KUMAR BINDU SREEDHAR ASIF N

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 006

¶15

2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 006

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI R LAKSHMI NARAYAN-STANDING COUNSEL, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).28872/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶20

-2-

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶26

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶27

W.P.(C)NO.28872 OF 2021

¶28

PETITIONER/S:

¶29

SATHEESAN. P, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. SATHI NESYAR, PALLIYANA HOUSE, ANNAKARA POST, THRISSUR - 680508.

¶30

BY ADVS. P.SANJAY A.PARVATHI MENON BIJU MEENATTOOR PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH) P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM KIRAN NARAYANAN, PRASOON SUNNY RAHUL RAJ P.

¶31

RESPONDENT/S:

¶32

1 THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673006.

¶33

2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673006.

¶34

OTHER PRESENT:

¶35

SRI R LAKSHMI NARAYAN-STANDING COUNSEL, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).28922/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶38

-3-

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶41

The common challenge in these writ petitions is against a hearing notice dated 03.12.2021 issued by the 1^st respondentCommissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board in relation to Sree Chirakkal Bhagavathy Temple, Annakkara. The said notice is marked as Ext.P6 in W.P(C).No.28922 of 2021, which is one issued pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court dated 12.08.2021 in W.P.(C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case. In Ext.P2 judgment in W.P.(C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case, Ext.P1 order dated 23.02.2021 of the 1^st respondent-Commissioner was ordered to be treated as a show cause notice and the Commissioner was directed to take an appropriate decision in the matter, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. Paragraph 6 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus:

¶42

“6. When the Writ Petitions came up for consideration today, the learned standing counsel for the first respondent fairly submitted that since the case of the petitioners is that Ext.P4 order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to them, the first respondent will reconsider the matter and pass

¶43

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶44

-4-

¶45

orders afresh after notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in such event, the petitioners shall be permitted to raise all factual and legal contentions before the first respondent and the first respondent shall pass a speaking order taking note of their contentions, within a time frame.

¶46

In the light of the submissions made as above, there will be a direction that Ext.P4 shall be treated as a show cause notice and a copy of the same shall be served by the 1st respondent on the seniormost male member of each of the 5 thavazhis. The list of the seniormost male member of the 5 thavazhis shall be furnished by one among the petitioners to the first respondent along with a certified copy of the judgment within two weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment. The 1^st respondent shall serve copy of Ext.P4 on these members within three weeks thereafter by specifying time for showing cause. The first respondent shall consider all legal and factual contentions of the members who respond to the notice as aforesaid and afford opportunity of hearing to them and take a fresh decision in accordance with law, untrammeled by any findings in Ext.P4, expeditiously. With these directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Needless to say, since Ext.P4 is only to be treated as a show cause notice, the same shall not be enforced.”

¶47

In W.P(C)No.28922 of 2021, the petitioner is seeking a

¶48

writ of certiorari to quash the findings on the merits of the case contained in Ext.P6 hearing notice dated 03.12.2021 issued by the

¶49

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶50

-5-

¶51

1^st respondent-Commissioner. He has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent-Commissioner to conduct the inquiry in accordance with the provisions contained in Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 and

¶52

the Rules framed thereunder; a declaration that a notice is nothing but an intimation regarding the posting of a proceeding and it should not contain any remark or finding about the merit of the case pending before the 1^st respondent-Commissioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the maintainability of Ext.P1 show cause notice as a preliminary issue in an unbiased manner. Ext.P6 hearing notice, which is under challenge in W.P(C)No.28922 of 2021 reads thus:

¶53

ഹഹിയറഹിറിംഗഗ് നനനോടട്ടീസഗ്

¶54

വഹിഷയറിം: ചനോവകനോടഗ് തനോലൂകഗ് - ശട്ടീ ചഹിറയ്ക്കൽ ഭഗവതഹി നക്ഷേതറിം - സുതനോരര്യമനോയ - - . ബഹ നക്ഷേതഭരണ നഹിർവ്വഹണറിം എടഗ് ഓഫട്ടീസററ നഹിയമഹിച്ചതഗ് - . ഹഹനകനോടതഹി ഉത്തരവഗ് പ്രകനോരമളു ്ള നടപടഹി ഹഹിയറഹിറിംഗഗ് നനനോടട്ടീസയക്കുന സൂചന: 1. കമട്ടീഷണറുറട എച്ചഗ് 8-450/2021 എറിംഡഹിബഹി നമ്പർ ഉത്തരവഗ് തട്ടീയതഹി 23.02.2021.

¶55

ബഹ. WP(C)No.9323 of 2021, ഹഹനകനോടതഹിയുറട

¶56

WP(C)No.10372/21 വഹിധഹിനര്യനോയറിം തട്ടീയതഹി 12.08.2021.

¶57

കമട്ടീഷണറുറട 23.09.2021 റലെ നമൽ നമ്പർ നനനോടട്ടീസഗ്.

¶58

4 ശട്ടീ. വഹിജയകുമനോർ എന്നവരുറട മറുപടഹി തട്ടീയതഹി 29.09.2021

¶59

ശട്ടീ.സതട്ടീശൻ.പഹി എന്നവരുറട മറുപടഹി തട്ടീയതഹി 30.09.2021.

¶60

കമട്ടീഷണറുറട 25.10.2021 റലെ നമൽ നമ്പമ്പർ കത്തഗ് .

¶61

മലെബനോർ നദേവസസറിം നബനോർഡഗ് സസത്തഗ് ഓഡഹിറഗ് ഇൻറസ്പെക്ടറുറട

¶62

29/2021/എറിംഡഹിബഹി നമ്പർ റഹിനപനോർടഗ് തട്ടീയതഹി 29.11.2021

¶63

¶64

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶65

-6-

¶66

സൂചന (1) പ്രകനോരമുള്ള ഉത്തരവഹിറനതഹിറര ബഹ. ഹഹനകനോടതഹിയഹിൽ നഹിലെനഹിന്നഹിരുന്ന നകസഹിൽ നമൽ ഉത്തരവഗ് കനോരണറിം കനോണഹികൽ നനനോടട്ടീസനോയഹി തുടർ നടപടഹികൾ സസട്ടീകരഹിക്കുന്നതഹിനഗ് സൂചന (2) പ്രകനോരറിം ഉത്തരവനോയഹിരുന. ഹഹനകനോടതഹി ഉത്തരവഹിറന്റെ അടഹിസനോനത്തഹിൽ സൂചന 3) പ്രകനോരറിം ശട്ടീ. വഹിജയകുമനോർ, ശട്ടീ. സതട്ടീശൻ. പഹി, ശട്ടീ. നഗനോപനോലെകര്യഷ്ണൻ എന്നഹിവർകഗ് സൂചന (4) പ്രകനോരറിം നനനോടട്ടീസഗ് നൽകുകയുണനോയഹി. ആയതഹിനന്മേൽ, സൂചന 4, 5 പ്രകനോരറിം ഹയലെഹിറലെ ചഹിലെ നരഖകൾ പരഹിനശനോധനയ്ക്കനോയഹി നൽകണറമന്ന അനപക്ഷേ തുടർന്നഗ് സൂചന (6) പ്രകനോരറിം ആവശര്യറപട നരഖകൾ തനോങ്കൾകഗ് അനുവദേഹിച നൽകഹിറയങ്കഹിലറിം സമർപഹിച്ച മറുപടഹിയഹിൽ നക്ഷേതറിം റപനോതുനക്ഷേ(തമറല്ലെനറിം മലെബനോർ നദേവസസറിം നബനോർഡഹിറന്റെ സർക്കുലെർ നൽനകണതഹിറല്ലെനറിം കുടറിംബനക്ഷേതമനോറണനറിം മററിം ഉന്നയഹിച്ചഗ് നടപടഹി നചനോദേര്യറിം റചയ് നോയനോണഗ് കനോണുന്നതഗ്. നനനോടട്ടീസഹിറലെ മറുപടഹി വസ് ത നോപരമനോയഹി ശരഹിയല്ലെനോത് ഹിനനോൽ . സസട്ടീകരഹിക്കുവനോൻ കഴഹിയുന്നതറല്ലെന കനോണുന

¶67

ഈ നമൽ സനോഹചരര്യത്തഹിൽ വഹിഷയവുമനോയഹി ബന്ധറപടഗ് തനോങ്കൾകഗ് നബനോധഹിപഹികനോനുള്ള വനോദേങ്ങൾ നനരഹിൽ നകൾക്കുന്നതഹിനഗ് തട്ടീരുമനോനഹിച്ചഹിട്ടുണഗ്. ആയതഹിനനോൽ 16.12.2021 തട്ടീയതഹി വര്യനോഴനോഴ്ച 11 am മണഹികഗ് തനോങ്കളുറട വനോദേങ്ങൾ അവതരഹിപഹിക്കുന്നതഹിനഗ് ഉനപനോൽബലെകമനോയ നരഖകൾ ഉറണങ്കഹിൽ ആയവ സഹഹിതറിം മലെബനോർ നദേവസസറിം നബനോർഡഗ് ആസനോനത്തഗ് കമട്ടീഷണർ മുമ്പനോറക ഹനോജരനോനകണതനോറണന്നഗ് ഇതഹിനനോൽ അറഹിയഹിക്കുന." (underline supplied)

¶68

The aforesaid hearing notice dated 03.12.2021 is marked as Ext.P7 in W.P.(C)No.28872 of 2021. In that writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the findings on the merits of the case contained in Ext.P7 hearing notice. He has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent-Commissioner to conduct the inquiry in accordance with the provisions contained in Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the Rules framed thereunder; a declaration that a notice is nothing but an intimation regarding the posting of a

¶69

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶70

-7-

¶71

proceeding and it should not contain any remark or finding about the merit of the case pending before the 1^st respondentCommissioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the maintainability of Ext.P2 order/show cause notice dated 03.21.2021 of the 1^st respondent-Commissioner as a preliminary issue, in an unbiased manner.

¶72

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petitions and also the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for the respondents.

¶73

The grievance of the petitioner in the respective writ petitions is that, contrary to the direction contained in the judgment of this Court dated 12.08.2021 in W.P.(C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case, the 1^st respondent-Commissioner has issued a hearing notice dated 23.02.2021 in which he has already decided the issue by stating as follows;

¶74

“സൂചന (6) പ്രകനോരറിം ആവശര്യറപട നരഖകൾ തനോങ്കൾകഗ് അനുവദേഹിച നൽകഹിറയങ്കഹിലറിം സമർപഹിച്ച മറുപടഹിയഹിൽ നക്ഷേതറിം റപനോതുനക്ഷേ(തമറല്ലെനറിം മലെബനോർ നദേവസസറിം നബനോർഡഹിറന്റെ സർക്കുലെർ നൽനകണതഹിറല്ലെനറിം കുടറിംബനക്ഷേതമനോറണനറിം മററിം ഉന്നയഹിച്ചഗ് നടപടഹി നചനോദേര്യറിം റചയ് നോയനോണഗ് കനോണുന്നതഗ്. നനനോടട്ടീസഹിറലെ മറുപടഹി വസ് ത നോപരമനോയഹി ശരഹിയല്ലെനോത് ഹിനനോൽ സസട്ടീകരഹിക്കുവനോൻ കഴഹിയുന്നതറല്ലെന കനോണുന.” (underline supplied)

¶75

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶76

-8-

¶77

The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board would submit that, a reading of the aforesaid notice dated 23.02.2021 would make it explicitly clear that, it is only a hearing notice issued by the 1^st respondent-Commissioner regarding the personal hearing scheduled to be held on 16.12.2021 at 11.00 a.m. The Commissioner is yet to take a decision in the matter, after considering the contentions raised by the affected parties.

¶78

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we find that the specific direction contained in the judgment dated 12.08.2021 in W.P.(C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case is to treat the order dated 23.02.2021 of the 1^st respondentCommissioner as a show cause notice and to take an appropriate decision in the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. Pursuant to the direction contained in the said judgment, the Commissioner issued the hearing notice dated 03.12.2021. The subject of the said notice reads as follows;

¶79

"വഹിഷയറിം: ചനോവകനോടഗ് തനോലൂകഗ് - ശട്ടീ ചഹിറയ്ക്കൽ ഭഗവതഹി നക്ഷേതറിം - സുതനോരര്യമനോയ നക്ഷേതഭരണ നഹിർവ്വഹണറിം - എടഗ് ഓഫട്ടീസററ നഹിയമഹിച്ചതഗ് - ബഹ. - ഹഹനകനോടതഹി ഉത്തരവഗ് പ്രകനോരമുള്ള നടപടഹി ഹഹിയറഹിറിംഗഗ് നനനോടട്ടീസയക്കുന.” (underline supplied)

¶80

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶81

-9-

¶82

Since the aforesaid notice is only a hearing notice issued by the 1^st respondent-Commissioner, pursuant to the direction contained in the judgment of this Court dated 12.08.2021 in W.P. (C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case, the Commissioner is

¶83

yet to take a decision in the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board. However, in view of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petition, we deem it appropriate to order deletion of the following sentence in the hearing notice dated 03.12.2021 issued by the 1^st respondentCommissioner;

¶84

"നനനോടട്ടീസഹിറലെ മറുപടഹി വസ് ത നോപരമനോയഹി ശരഹിയല്ലെനോത് ഹിനനോൽ സസട്ടീകരഹിക്കുവനോൻ കഴഹിയുന്നതറല്ലെന കനോണുന.”

¶85

In Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union

¶86

[(1971) 1 All. E.R. 1148] Lord Denning, M.R. Observed that, the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed that, failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or

¶87

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶88

-10-

¶89

conclusion arrived at.

¶90

Following the principle laid down in the decisions referred to above, the Apex Court in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar [(2003) 4 SCC 364] held that, reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The 'inscrutable face of a sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicial performance.

¶91

A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has laid down in Krishna Swami v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 605] that undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democracy governed by rule of law, any action, decision or order of any statutory/public authority/ functionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the order or

¶92

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶93

-11-

¶94

staring from the record. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶95

The object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The recording of reasons by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions making. It would apply equally to all decisions made by such authority and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. At the same time, it is not the requirement that, the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. What is necessary is that, the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that, some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by

¶96

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶97

-12-

¶98

an administrative or quasi-judicial authority.

¶99

In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to

¶100

supra, any order passed by the 1^st respondent-Commissioner in the matter, pursuant to the direction contained in the judgment dated 12.08.2021 in W.P.(C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, as provided in the hearing notice dated 03.12.2021, must be founded upon the reasons stated therein, reflecting application of mind by the Commissioner to the legal and factual contentions raised by the affected parties, including any preliminary issue on the maintainability of the show cause notice dated 23.02.2021.

¶101

In such circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of by deleting the sentence "നനനോടട്ടീസഹിറലെ മറുപടഹി വസ് ത നോപരമനോയഹി ശരഹിയല്ലെനോത് ഹിനനോൽ സസട്ടീകരഹിക്കുവനോൻ കഴഹിയുന്നതറല്ലെന കനോണുന.” in the hearing notice dated

¶102

03.12.2021 issued by the 1^st respondent-Commissioner, and by directing the Commissioner to pass orders in the matter, pursuant to the direction contained in the judgment dated 12.08.2021 in W.P. (C)No.9323 of 2021 and the connected case, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, as provided in the hearing notice dated 03.12.2021. The order to be

¶103

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶104

-13-

¶105

passed by the Commissioner must be founded upon the reasons stated therein, reflecting application of mind by the Commissioner

¶106

to the legal and factual contentions raised by the affected parties,

¶107

including any preliminary issue on the maintainability of the show

¶108

cause notice dated 23.02.2021.

¶109

Sd/-

¶110

ANIL K. NARENDRAN,

¶111

Judge

¶112

Sd/-

¶113

P. G. AJITHKUMAR, Judge

¶114

bkn/-

¶115

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶116

-14-

¶117

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28872/2021

¶118

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶119

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT IN OS 101
	OF 1967 OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 20.07.1971.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H-8-450/2021 MDB DATED 23.02.2021 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT, GIVEN TO THE PRESENT SENIOR MOST MALE MEMBER MANAGING THE FAMILY TEMPLE ON 07.04.2021
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 9323/2021 AND WP(C) 10372/2021 DATED 12.08.2021.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. H8- 450/2021/MDB(1) DATED 23.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO EXHIBIT P4 NOTICE.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. RTI-16/2021/MDB DATED 28.07.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE NO. H8- 450/2021/M.D.B DATED 03.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶120

W.P.(C)Nos.28922 & 28872 of 2021

¶121

-15-

¶122

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28922/2021

¶123

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶124

Exhibit P1	TRUE 450/2 THE 1	COPY 021/M ST RE	OF THE ORDER NO. H 8- DB DATED 23-02-2021 ISSUED BY SPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE 9323/ KERAL	COPY 2021 A	OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P9C0 NO. DT 12-08-2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
Exhibit P3	TRUE 450/2 THE 1	COP 021/M ST RE	Y OF THE NOTICE NO. H8- DB91) DATED 23-09-2021 ISSUED BY SPONDENT
Exhibit P4	TRUE 2021 NOTIC	COPY FILED E	OF THE OBJECTION DATED 13-10- BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P3
Exhibit P5	TRUE ISSUE UNDER	COPY D BY RIGH	OF THE REPLY DATED 28-07-2021 THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT T TO INFORMATION ACT
Exhibit P6	TRUE 2021/ 1ST R	COPY MDB D ESPON	OF THE HEARING NOTICE H 8 450 ATED 03-12-2021 ISSUED BY THE DENT

Vijayakumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rubil P.M Vs Seena

M.P.Manikantan, Vs the Malabar Devaswom Board

Mini Rajendran, Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Vinesh V.T Vs the Secretary

Kunnumbrath Beevi Vs Neeratti Muhammed Ashraf

Kunnumbrath Beevi Vs Puthanpurayil Hajira