Quashed

Joy Scaria v. Union of India

Kerala HC20 Jan 2021WP(C)/840/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petitioner challenged a one-line non-speaking order passed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Mines, alleging violation of natural justice and lack of application of mind. The High Court of Kerala quashed the order, violating the principle of audi alteram partem.

What did the court decide?

The impugned one-line order was quashed; the respondent is directed to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner within six weeks.

Joy Scaria Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/30TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

W.P(C).No.840 OF 2021(D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOY SCARIA AGED 58 YEARS S/O.SCARIA, PULIKUNNEL HOUSE, POOVATHODU P.O., BHARANANGANAM, MEENACHIL TALUK, POOVARANI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM - 686 578.

¶8

BY ADVS.SHRI.TONY GEORGE THOMAS SMT. AKSHARA SHYAM SMT. ADARSA P.M.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MINES, SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶11

2 THE UNDER SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINES, SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶12

R1-2 BY SRI.C.DINESH, CGC BY SRI.SUVIN R. MENON, CGC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C).No.840/2021 :: 2 ::

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed by the 2^nd respondent in purported compliance with the directions in Ext.P4 judgment of this Court. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that although, by Ext.P4 judgment, this Court had directed the 2^nd respondent to pass orders on the issues raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 5.11.2019, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent proceeded to pass a one line non-speaking order without hearing the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel is essentially that Ext.P5 order is vitiated by a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice.

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

¶18

W.P.(C).No.840/2021 :: 3 ::

¶19

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, and on a perusal of Ext.P5 order impugned in the writ petition, I find that the said order cannot be legally sustained since it does not reflect an application of mind by the 2^nd respondent and also it appears to be one that is passed without hearing the petitioner. Under such circumstances, I quash Ext.P5 order, and direct the 2^nd respondent to pass fresh orders in lieu thereof, after hearing the petitioner, and in strict compliance with the directions in Ext.P4 judgment of this Court. The 2^nd respondent shall pass fresh orders, as directed, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2^nd respondent, for further action.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶23

prp/20/1/2021

¶24

W.P.(C).No.840/2021 :: 4 ::

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NOS.33499/2016, 26397/2015, 24865/2015 AND CP(C) NO.1516/2015 DATED 23/06/2017.

¶28

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NOS.2271, 2272 AND 2273 OF 2017 VIDE A COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 16/07/2018.

¶29

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 05/11/2019.

¶30

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.12289/2020 DATED 23/06/2020. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.16/67/2020-M.VI ISSUED IN DECEMBER, 2020.

¶31

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶32

//TRUE COPY//

¶33

P.S. TO JUDGE

Joy Scaria v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy Scaria v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janeesh Vs the District Collector

Joseph Mathew Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

M.P.Kuriakose Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Sbt Officers Housing Co-Operative Society Limited NO.2408 Vs Kozhikode Corporation

Alibava Haji Vs State of Kerala

Yousuf Haji Vs Deputy Secretary to Government