Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 44006
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, A. BADHARUDEEN, JJ
SREEJA A. – Appellant
Versus
SUNITHA B. – Respondent
OP(KAT)/320/2017
SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, SRI.P.V.ANOOP, SRI.M.V.AMARESAN, SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SRI.PHILJO VARUGHESE PHILIPS, SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA, SRI.V.VARGHESE, SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO, SRI.S.A.ANAND, SMT.K.N.REMYA, SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA, SHRI.VISHNU V.K.KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
Only parties directly involved in Tribunal proceedings have the standing to approach the High Court for review under Articles 226 and 227.
Headnote:
Locus Standi - Original Petition - Articles 226, 227 - Summary of Articles 226 and 227 discusses jurisdiction of High Court over Tribunal decisions, highlighting the necessity of locus standi for non-parties to seek redress.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a third party, sought to challenge a judgment of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, claiming detriment from its decision, without being a party in the original proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court ruled the original petition as not maintainable, emphasizing that only directly affected parties may seek judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 after establishing locus and detrimental impact.
Issues: Whether a third party can directly approach the High Court to challenge a Tribunal verdict without having locus standi.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that a person not involved in Tribunal proceedings lacks the standing to appeal directly before the High Court, necessitating a formal review application before the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The original petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
JUDGMENT
In this case the petitioner in the OP is a third party in the original application proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent herein before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench. It is by now settled by a series of rulings as inRajeev Kumar and anthr. Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and other [ 2010 4 SCC 554], Girish Babu Vs. Pavithran [2013 (3) KLT 453 (DB)] etc. that a person, who is not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, is not entitled to directly approach the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India , so as to challenge the verdict of the Tribunal and that the remedy to the said cases is the parties to approach Tribunal and to establish that, he has necessary locus and that he is detrimentally affected by the verdict of the Tribunal and to seek a formal review of the impugned verdict of the Tribunal and thereafter, if the party still has any grievances, he/she may approach the High Court by resort proceedings under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India , etc.
2. Certain exceptions have been culled out by the Full Bench of this Court in[ Haris v. Jahfar [2021 (4) KLT 155] and none of those exceptions are arising in the instant case. Hence it is ordered to be held that the present original petition is not maintainable and liberty is accorded to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by filing a formal review application, and after establishing her locus and also to show that how she is detrimentally affected by the impugned verdict of the Tribunal etc. The plea of the petitioner that time spent from 14.8.2017 before this Court in the OP, may be excluded as envisaged under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of computing delay in filing the application before the Tribunal etc. may be duly considered by the Tribunal. With these observations and directions and with the said liberty, this original petition will stands dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE sd/
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 320/2017 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RANK LIST DATED 20.03.2013 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED
18.09.2013 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF LAW ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE CERTIFICATE DATED
14.02.2014 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT DATED 09.02.2014 ANNEXURE MA 1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART PUBLISHED BY KPSC IN WEBSITE EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1689/2014 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A1 TO ANNEXURE A4 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MISC APPLICATION NO.446/2016 IN OA NO.1689/2014 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT FOR DIRECTION EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MISC APPLICATION NO.451/2016 IN OA NO.1689/2014 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE MA1 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MISC NO.482/2016 IN OS NO.1689/2014 FILED BY THE APPLICANT FOR IMPLEADING ADDITIONAL 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
24.2.2015 FILED BY KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATION TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.5.2016 IN OA NO.1689/2014 ON THE FILE OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO.SS/III/STAFF NURSE GR.II/HS/KSGD/13 DATED
9.9.2016 OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-13298/2013/DMO (H) KANHANGAD DATED 20.10.2016 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION SCHEDULED TRIBE ORDER (2ND AMENDMENT) BILL 2012 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED
31.7.2010 FOR CATEGORY NO.201/2010 PUBLISHED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR THE POST OF NURSE GRADE II.
