Kerala High Court
Joy Scaria vs Union Of India on 20 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/30TH POUSHA, 1942
W.P(C).No.840 OF 2021(D)
PETITIONER:
JOY SCARIA
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.SCARIA, PULIKUNNEL HOUSE, POOVATHODU P.O.,
BHARANANGANAM, MEENACHIL TALUK, POOVARANI VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM - 686 578.
BY ADVS.SHRI.TONY GEORGE THOMAS
SMT. AKSHARA SHYAM
SMT. ADARSA P.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MINES,
SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2 THE UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF MINES, SHASTRI BHAVAN,
DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
R1-2 BY SRI.C.DINESH, CGC
BY SRI.SUVIN R. MENON, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.840/2021 :: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
Ext.P5 order passed by the 2 nd respondent in purported
compliance with the directions in Ext.P4 judgment of this
Court. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that
although, by Ext.P4 judgment, this Court had directed the 2 nd
respondent to pass orders on the issues raised by the
petitioner in his representation dated 5.11.2019, after
affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the
petitioners, the 2nd respondent proceeded to pass a one line
non-speaking order without hearing the petitioner. The
contention of the learned counsel is essentially that Ext.P5
order is vitiated by a non-compliance with the rules of
natural justice.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
as also the learned Central Government Counsel for the
respondents.
W.P.(C).No.840/2021 :: 3 ::
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances
of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, and
on a perusal of Ext.P5 order impugned in the writ petition, I
find that the said order cannot be legally sustained since it
does not reflect an application of mind by the 2 nd respondent
and also it appears to be one that is passed without hearing
the petitioner. Under such circumstances, I quash Ext.P5
order, and direct the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders in
lieu thereof, after hearing the petitioner, and in strict
compliance with the directions in Ext.P4 judgment of this
Court. The 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders, as
directed, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner
shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy
of this judgment, before the 2 nd respondent, for further
action.
The writ petition is disposed as above.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
prp/20/1/2021
W.P.(C).No.840/2021 :: 4 ::
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA IN WP(C) NOS.33499/2016,
26397/2015, 24865/2015 AND CP(C)
NO.1516/2015 DATED 23/06/2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WRIT
APPEAL NOS.2271, 2272 AND 2273 OF 2017 VIDE
A COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 16/07/2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 05/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT IN
W.P.(C) NO.12289/2020 DATED 23/06/2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.16/67/2020-M.VI
ISSUED IN DECEMBER, 2020.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
