Precedent established by previous judgments, including final Supreme Court decisions, is binding in administrative proceedings and must be followed unless clearly invalidated.

Headnote:
Judgment - OP(KAT) Case - Judgments References - Court dismissed the OP(KAT) based on precedent set by previous cases and attached government orders.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved an Original Petition before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal concerning administrative actions and orders issued by various government departments, which were challenged on the grounds of legality and procedural adherence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the issues presented in this OP(KAT) were covered by earlier judgments, including a specific case that was already dismissed by the Supreme Court, thereby reinforcing the precedence in administrative law.
Issues: Whether the administrative decisions and associated government orders were lawful and whether the procedural grounds for challenging them were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The core principle determined was that previous judicial decisions on similar matters, especially those upheld by higher courts, are binding and should be followed unless compelling reasons are provided for deviation.
Final Decision: The OP(KAT) is dismissed.

C.R.

JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

The 'Cultural Capital' of the State woke up, to the news of a thoroughly uncultured act, adding chill to the otherwise cold January morning. A frenzied attack by a resident of an apartment complex, on an employee of the complex, with a powerful vehicle; resulted in the victim sustaining very grievous injuries to which he succumbed eighteen days later, during which period he was continuously in the Intensive Care Unit of a hospital. The prosecution allegation is that the accused who approached the complex in the very early hours of 29.01.2015; incensed with the staff at the entrance of the complex having delayed to raise the electronic barrier for his smooth entry into the complex, went on a rampage. The accused parked the vehicle, got out of it and unleashed a vocal tirade against the staff, which was respectfully questioned by the deceased. Furious with that, the accused assaulted the deceased, who, first hid inside the security cabin. When the accused gained entry into the cabin by smashing the window panes and started assaulting him, he jumped out of it and ran on to the curb, near the fountain at the entrance itself. The accused then got into his car, chased the running man, took the car over the curb, intentionally hitting the victim with the car, a high-end, powerful one, by name Hummer. The victim was thrown down and the car swerved onto the fountain, one tyre of which burst on the impact. The car was taken out of the fountain, the victim further assaulted and bundled into the Hummer by the accused. The Hummer was then taken around the fountain, back to the entrance where the wife of the accused; who came in another car from inside the complex, having been summoned over telephone, entered the Hummer which was driven into the parking area of one of the apartment buildings, by name Topaz. There, the victim was pulled out of the vehicle and further assaulted physically, by which time the Police arrived. The victim was taken to the Hospital and the accused to the Police Station. This is the long and short of the prosecution case on which the trial was conducted.

2. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses in the trial and marked documents from Exts.P1 to P65(a); many in series. Material Objects, MO1 to MO24 were produced, of which MO1, MO6, MO18 & MO24 were in series. The Court marked one Exhibit as Ext.C1. The defence examined 6 witnesses and marked Exts.D1 to D57; again many in series. The trial Court convicted the accused under Ss.323, 324, 326, 302, 427, 449 & 506 of IPC and acquitted him on the charges under Ss.341 & 294(b) IPC. The accused was imposed with the sentence of imprisonment of life under S.302 IPC and fine of Rs.70 lakhs; out of which Rs.50 lakhs was to be paid as compensation, to the family of the victim, under S.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C which was to be received by the wife of the deceased. Various terms of sentences were also imposed under the other provisions, with a fine totalling Rs.1,30,000/- under S 326, 427 & 449 IPC and suitable default sentences were also provided. Three appeals are before us, one, of the accused, against the conviction and sentence, the other, of the owner of the vehicle against the order in a Crl.M.A refusing to release the vehicle to the applicant and another, by the State seeking capital punishment for reason of the accused having unleashed a merciless attack on a defenceless person, especially the act of having used a car to mow him down and thus murder him.

I. THE DEFENCE: 3. Sri. B Raman Pillai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused, instructed by Sri. Sujesh Menon made a scathing attack on the prosecution, the medical evidence and the investigation. It was argued that all, conspired together to nail the accused with murder, when actually the accused was at the receiving end. An accident occurred when the accused was fleeing from the aggressors; that too on the deceased, one of the aggressors, trying to stop him. The prosecution, he styled as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document