Point of Law: Section 57 of the Madras HR&CE Act, 1951 has no power to consider any prayers in the nature contained in Exhibit P2 or Exhibit P3.

ORDER :

1. Paragraph 13 of the statement of facts and also the first relief sought for in this writ petition read thus:

“13. The law on the point is settled by a learned single judge of the High Court of Kerala in 1999 (2) KLT 590 and subsequently by the Division Bench, 2004 (2) KLT 511 and 2013 (3) KLT 1017 wherein it is clearly declared that the 1st respondent/the Deputy Commissioner functioning under section 57 of the Madras HR&CE Act, 1951 has no power to consider any prayers in the nature contained in Exhibit P2 or Exhibit P3.”

Relief:

“(i) Declare that the prayers in Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P3 applications filed by the respondents 7 and 8, numbered by the 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner as OA 3/2019 and pending before him is not maintainable in law in the light of the law declared by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala in 1999 (2) KLT 590 and subsequently by the Division Bench, in 2004 (2) KLT 511 and 2013 (3) KLT 1017.”

2. In Alikutty and Another vs. State of Kerala, ILR 2006 (4) Ker. 364, a Division Bench of this Court held that, while citing decisions in a judgment, the names of parties should also be given. In the said decision, the Division Bench followed the decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Council vs. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 1561.

3. The principle laid down in Alikutty (supra) would apply with equal force, while citing decisions in all petitions, affidavits, memorandum of appeal and other proceedings presented before this Court. Therefore, while citing decisions in writ petitions, appeals, revisions, counter affidavits, reply affidavits, etc., presented before this Court, the names of parties should also be given, along with citation.

4. Await return of notice.

5. Interim order will stand extended by two weeks.

List on 05.07.2022.