Allowed

D.Ajayakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Nov 2022WA/1621/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala, the instant writ appeal is allowed, holding that since the precedent judgment relied upon by the lower court was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn, the lower court should have considered the merits. The impugned dismissal order is set aside.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 08.07.2022 in W.P. (C) No.21909/2022 and connected cases is set aside; writ appeal allowed; writ petitions to be considered on merits.

D.Ajayakumar Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.A.No.1621 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶8

FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶9

WA NO. 1621 OF 2022

¶10

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4655/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶11

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶12

1 D.AJAYAKUMAR AGED 50 YEARS S/O DAMODARAN NAIR, SECRETARY, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION (REGISTRATION NO. 174/1955), S. VARADARAJAN NAIR SMARAKA MANDIRAM, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: 695014.

¶13

2 M.I. ALIYAR, AGED 46 YEARS

¶14

S/O IBRAHIM M.A., ORGANIZING SECRETARY, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION (REGISTRATION NO.174/1955), S. VARADARAJAN NAIR SMARAKA MANDIRAM, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695014.

¶15

BY ADV G.S.REGHUNATH ADV.ANANDU

¶16

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶18

2 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶19

3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMN.). KERALA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695023.

¶20

W.A.No.1621 of 2022

¶21

¶22

4 KSRT - SWIFT, ANAYARA DEPOT OF KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695029, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶23

5 BIJU PRABHAKAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695023.

¶24

ADV.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2022,

¶26

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.1621 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2022

¶31

S.MANIKUMAR, CJ.

¶32

Before the writ court, petitioner/appellant has sought for the following reliefs:

¶33

i) That all records relating to Exhibit P3 be called to this Hon'ble Court and the same be quashed.

¶34

ii) That a writ of mandamus or other order be issued directing respondents 1, 2 and 4 to liquidate and wind up the 4^th respondent company and direct not to function in the name of 4^th respondent on the basis of Exhibits P3 and P4.

¶35

iii)That the petitioners be granted such further reliefs as aRe appropriate and incidental to this writ petition.

¶36

The writ court, vide a common judgment dated 8.7.2022 in W.P.© No.4655

¶37

of 2022 & connected cases, dismissed the writ petitions holding as follows:

¶38

“ JUDGEMENT

¶39

The controversy involved in these cases has already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 23.3.2022 in W.P.(C) No.9884 of 2022 against the petitioner therein.

¶40

In this view of the matter, these writ petitions are also dismissed in terms of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.9884 of 2022.”

¶41

Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed.

¶42

On similar facts and circumstances, after hearing the learned counsel for

¶43

appellant in W.A.No.1264/2022, on 15/7/2022, we passed the following judgment:

W.A.No.1621 of 2022

“ JUDGMENT

This writ appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 8.7.2022 in W.P.(C)No.21909/2022.

¶48

Before the writ court, Transport Democratic Federation (TDF) sought for the following reliefs:

¶49

i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P1;

¶50

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to wind up the 4th respondent, forthwith;

¶51

iii. Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the 4th respondent has no right/privilege/status to make use of the privileges/facilities of the 2nd respondent, conferred under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and other relevant statutes;

¶52

iv. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to appoint a full/whole time Chairman & Managing Director to the 2nd respondent (who does not discharge any other duty/responsibility), unlike the 5th respondent, who functions as Managing Director of the 2nd and 4th respondents, apart from functioning as the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Transport;

¶53

v. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to take over all the facilities, except the employees, of the 4th respondent, and entrust all the buses and facilities for the purpose of the 2nd respondent, forthwith;

¶54

Citing the judgment dated 23rd March, 2022 in W.P.(C)No.9884/2022 and without going into the merits of the writ petition, by common judgment dated 8th July 2022, learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C)No.21909 of 2022 and connected cases, which reads thus:

¶55

“The controversy involved in these cases has already been decided by this court vide judgment dated 23.3.2022 in W.P.

¶56

W.A.No.1621 of 2022

¶57

¶58

(C)No.9884 of 2022 against the petitioner therein.

¶59

In this view of the matter, these writ petitions are also dismissed in terms of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.9884 of 2022.”

¶60

Mr.Raju Joseph, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that against the decision in W.P.(C)No.9884/2022 dated 23.3.2022, W.A.No.539/2022 has been preferred by the appellant. However, the said writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by judgment dated 10th June 2022, which reads thus:

¶61

“The learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition without prejudice to his right to file a fresh writ petition based on the fresh cause of action that has arisen. Permission is granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of the appellant reserved as above.”

¶62

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submitted that taking note of the dismissal of W.P.(C)No.9884 of 2022 as withdrawn at the appellate stage, the writ court ought to have considered the merits of the contentions raised in W.P.(C)No.21909/2022 and connected cases, instead of dismissing the same.

¶63

We have heard Mr.Deepu Thankan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation.

¶64

As rightly contended by Mr.Raju Joseph, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that since W.P.(C)No.9884 of 2022 itself has been dismissed as withdrawn, judgment passed on merits on 23rd March 2022 in W.P.(C)No.9884 of 2022 ought not have been relied on for the purpose of dismissal of subsequent writ petitions stated supra wherein contentions are stated to have been made, based on fresh cause of action.

¶65

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated supra, judgment dated 8.7.2022 in W.P. (C)No.21909/2022 is set aside. However, we make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the subsequent writ petition. Writ

¶66

W.A.No.1621 of 2022

¶67

¶68

court is requested to take up the writ petition and consider the same on its merit.

¶69

In as much as we are not expressing anything on the merits of the contentions, registry is directed to number the writ appeals arising out of the common judgment without insisting for translated copies of the documents.

¶70

Accordingly, writ appeal is allowed. "

¶71

The decision made in W.A.No.1264/2022 is squarely applicable to the case on hand. In such circumstances, the judgment in W.P.© No.4655/2022 dated 8.7.2022 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

S.MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶74

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶75

smv

D.Ajayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Ajayakumar v. State of Kerala

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

Rekha P.R Vs Bar Council of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs K.Sreedharan

The Town Planning Officer, Palakkad Municipality Vs Rajagopal Menon

Usha.C Vs Indane, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Prasoon Sunny Vs State of Kerala

Justin Pallivathikal Vs Union of India