Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 90947
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ
KERALA GOVERNMENT VETERINARY OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (REG. NO.305/2013) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
R.P. NO. 1067 OF 2024 | O.P.(KAT) NO.316 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.NANDAKUMAR, VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR
For the Respondents: K.S.BHARATHAN
Associations lack locus standi to challenge transfer orders in administrative tribunals under specified procedural rules.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLVII, Rule 1 - Review Petition - Petitioners sought review alleging errors apparent on record in the judgment dated 04.09.2024 - The Court held that the standard for review is strict, and errors of law or merits of the case cannot be grounds for review. (Paras 1, 8)
(B) Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010 - Rule 4(4) and Rule 7 - The question of whether an association can challenge a transfer order was examined, with the Court finding no locus standi for the petitioners association in this case. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a review petition against a judgment allowing their original petition against transfer orders concerning multiple respondents, claiming procedural errors in the prior ruling.
Findings of Court:
The review petition was dismissed on grounds that the challenges raised were not permissible and the findings on procedural aspects were upheld.
Issues: The main issue was the locus standi of the association to file the application challenging transfer orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reiterated that an association may not have locus standi in cases of transfer challenges, and procedural rules were correctly interpreted in context.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition details and basis for filing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. judgment overview highlighting interim stay order. (Para 3) |
| 3. challenging the locus standi and procedural rules. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. review standards and permissible grounds. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final ruling on the review petition's dismissal. (Para 9 , 10) |
-
O.P.(KAT) No.316 of 2024 ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.----------------------------------------------------------
R.P.No.1067 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.316 of 2024 -----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2024
O R D E R
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
Respondents No.1 and 2 in the original petition have filed this petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (Code). They seek to review the judgment dated 04.09.2024 in the original petition alleging that there occurred errors in the judgment, which are apparent on the face of the record.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioner filed O.A.(EKM) No.984 of 2024 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The said application was filed challenging Annexure A12 transfer order to the extent it relates to the transfer of O.P.(KAT) No.316 of 2024 respondents No.3 to 44 in the original application. The Tribunal ordered on 22.07.2024 interim stay against implementation of transfers concerning the said respondents as per Annexure A12. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a miscellaneous application seeking to vacate the said interim order. The Tribunal dismissed that application. In the said circumstances, respondents No.1 and 2 filed O.P.(KAT) No.316 of 2024. After hearing both sides, this Court allowed the original petition.
-
4. The petitioners seek to review the said judgment essentially on three grounds;
(i) the view taken by this Court that an association could not file an original application before the Tribunal is an error inasmuch as implication of Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules , 2010 (for short “the Procedure Rules”) and Rule 7 of Kerala Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 2011 (for short “the Practice Rules”) was not considered;
-
O.P.(KAT) No.316 of 2024 (ii) the finding that an association could not file an application before the Tribunal is against the settled law in that aspect; and (iii) the view taken that the 2nd respondent did not have locus standi to file original application is based on wrong understanding of facts.
5. One of the questions considered in the judgment was whether the 1st petitioner, being a service organisation, has locus standi to file an application before the Tribunal challenging an order of transfer. The said question was considered by this Court in the light of the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 (for short “the Act”) and the law laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions. It was held that the 1st respondent association was disentitled to file an application challenging transfer. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners now is that Rule 4(4) of the Procedure Rules and Rule 7 of the Practice Rules lay down the procedure and conditions for filing an application by an association, which O.P.(KAT) No.316 of 2024 has an unassailable implication that an association is competent to file such an application, but that aspect was not considered inspite of bringing to the notice of the court.
-
6. The finding in the judgment under review is not that an association can in no circumstance file an application before the Tribunal. Finding is only that an association cannot file an application challenging the orders of transfer. The said rules apply in cases where an association can file an application. After considering the relevant provisions in the Act and the applicable case law, we took the view that an association has no locus standi to
