Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13324
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
S. CHANDRA MOHAN – Respondent
OP(KAT) 4317 2013
ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN; ADV. SRI.M.SALIM; ADV. SRI.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI; ADV. SRI.R.SRINATH; ADV. SRI.V.M.JACOB
The judgment emphasized that prior adjudications determined the case's outcome, dictating the respect of established conditions by the parties involved.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Original Petition - W.A. No.2503/2005 - The court upheld the Tribunal's order, confirming that conditions for the original petition were satisfied based on prior judgments, emphasizing adherence to government orders.
Fact of the Case:
The State filed an Original Petition against a Tribunal order, but respondents claimed that their situation was already resolved in their favor by a prior judgment referenced as Exhibit P3.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issues were previously resolved in favor of the respondents, complying with the conditions set in W.A. No.2503/2005, thus upholding the Tribunal's decision.
Issues: Whether the respondents met the criteria set in prior judgments and if the Tribunal's decision should be upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the respondents fulfilled the requirement established in the earlier judgment, thus justifying the dismissal of the Original Petition.
Final Decision: The Original Petition is dismissed and the Tribunal's order is upheld.
JUDGMENT
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
This Original Petition is filed by the State and others aggrieved by the order passed in T.A. No.1676/2012 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the issue raised herein is already covered in favour of the respondents in the light of the judgment in W.A. No.2503/2005 produced as Exhibit P3. Learned Government Pleader submitted that for the application of the dictum therein, two conditions were provided in paragraph 5 of the judgment, which are seen satisfied by the party respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that their names are already in the Government Order Exhibit P2 (11). We have perused Exhibit.P2 (11) and Serial Nos.31, 37 and 41 are the respondents herein. In the light of the above, all the issues are covered already in favour O.P. (KAT) No. 4317 of 2013 2 of the respondents as per Exhibit P3 judgment in W.A. No.2503/2005 . Hence, the Original Petition is dismissed. The order of the Tribunal is upheld and the follow up action to implement the direction in the order of the Tribunal will be taken expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE DMR/-
