Kerala High Court
Joalex Kollannur vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
WP(C) No.25569/2024 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Friday, the 2nd day of August 2024 / 11th Sravana, 1946
IA.NO.2/2024 IN WP(C) NO. 25569 OF 2024 (U)
APPLICANT/PETITIONER:
JOALEX KOLLANNUR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. K.A. JOSEPH, DEPUTY MANAGER
(SYSTEMS) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, SBI, STATE BANK BHAVAN, KOVILA
KATHUMPADAM, THRISSUR (DT)-680020, RESIDING AT KOLLANNUR,
CHEUTHURUTHY POST, THRISSUR (DT) - 679531
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF
FINANCE, NEW DELHI - 110001
2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, 2 ND FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING,
SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001
3. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, LIC,
MUMBAI - 400021
4. MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK
BHAVAN, MADAME CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA -
400021
5. CHIEF GENERAL MANGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE
BANK BHAVAN, MADAME CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA -
400021
6. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CDO), KERALA CIRCLE, HUMAN RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT, THIRD FLOOR, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, SBI, POOJAPURA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695012
7. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (B &O), ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SBI STATE BANK
BHAVAN KOVILAMATHUMPAADAM PATTURAIKAL THRISSUR- 680020
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to allow the
petitioner to amend the writ petition in the following manner:-
I. The following paragraphs may be added as paragraph 11 and 12
after the present paragraph No.10.
"11. It is submitted that when the counter affidavit was filed by
the respondents 3 to 7 on 24.07.2024 it came to the knowledge of the
petitioner that there was a note rejecting the representation submitted by
the petitioner in which he requested retention at the Administrative
Office, Thrissur. A true copy of the note No.HR.P & T:197 issued by the
Assistant General Manager in charge, SBI, Human Resource Department dated
20.06.2024 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P9. Ext.P9 is under
challenge in this writ petition and liable to be quashed. From Ext.P9 it
can be understood that none of the grievances of the petitioner have been
dealt with. None of the relevant facts and circumstances of the petitioner
are addressed in Ext. P9, There is no application of mind in passing the
said note. From mere perusal of Ext.P9 it can be understood that the
WP(C) No.25569/2024 2/5
subjective grievances of the petitioner stated in his representation have
not been addressed at all in the rejection. It is by non-consideration of
relevant facts and consideration of irrelevant facts, Ext.P9 has been
passed. Also, there is total non-application of mind. Moreover, Ext.P9 has
been passed without communicating the same to the petitioner. The
petitioner is not aware of the reasons for rejection of his
representation
until the filing of the said counter affidavit. The reasons stated
in Ext.p9 note are arbitrary and untenable.
12. It is not correct to say that the petitioner is relieved by
R3(d). Since the petitioner was on leave from 20.06.2024 to 19.07.2024, he
could not have been relieved on 15.07.2027. Therefore, R3(d) is also under
challenge. Likewise, when there is an order of status quo issued by this
Hon'ble Court, his 2nd application for leave should not have been rejected
by way of Exhibit P11. For these reasons the relieving orders and Ext.P11
also are under chalienge in this writ petition. For the same reason,
Ext.P12 relieving order also is bad in law and unsustainable. Therefore,
the petitioner seeks consequential declaratory reliefs".
II. The present ground may be incorporated as ground No. H, I and J
after the present ground G:-
H. When the petitioner was on medical leave from 20.06.2024 to
19.07.2024, he could not have been physically relieved either as per
Ext.P12 or as per the alleged order dated 15.07.2027 R3(d). All such
'relieving orders' are only to be declared as invalid in view of the
status quo order issued by this Hon'ble Court on 17.07.2024. Likewise, in
view of the said status quo order, Ext.P11 rejecting the leave sought for
also is bad in law and unsustainable. When the question as to where the
petitioner should continue is to be decided by this Hon'ble Court, these
impugned orders ought not to have been issued by the Bank is an arbitrary
manner.
I. Ext.P9 is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. Ext.P9 is liable to be
quashed. Ext.P9 rejects the representation of the petitioner without
consideration of the subjective facts and circumstances of the petitioner.
It is without From mere perusal of Ext.P9 application of mind Ext. P9 has
been issued it can be understood that the subjective grievanceg of the
petitioner stated in his representation have not been addressed in the
rejection, It is by non- consideration of relevant facts and consideration
of irrelevant facts Ext.P9 has been Passed. Moreover, Ext.P9 has been
passed without communicating the same to the petitioner. The petitioner is
not aware of the reasons for rejection of his representation until the
filing of the said counter affidavit. The reasons stated in Ext.P9 note
are arbitrary and untenable. (please see Associated Provincial Picture
Houses Lid Wednesbury Corporation, [1948]1 KB 223).
J. It is submitted that this is a classic case of non-consideration
of relevant facts and the Wednesbury principles are laid down by Hon'ble
WP(C) No.25569/2024 3/5
Supreme Court in the landmark judgment Omkar & Ors v Union of India, ATR
2000 SC 3689 is squarely applicable to this case. The said doctrine has
been adopted and applied by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments, The
relevant excerpts from above mentioned judgment have been furnished below:
"26. Lord Greene said in 1948 in the Wednesbury case that when a
statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, the scope
of judicial review would remain limited. He said that interference was not
permissible unless one or other of the following conditions were
satisfied, -namely the order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were
not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered; OT tle decision was
one wohich no reasonable person could have taken. These principles were
consistently followed in the UK and in India to judge the validity of
administrative action. It is equally well known that in 1983, Lord Diplock
in Council for Civil Services Union v. Minister of Civil Service 1983 (1)
AC 768 (called the GCHQ case) summarised the principles of judicial review
of administrutive action as based upon one or other of the following -
viz. illegality, procedural irregularity and irrationality.
33. In Australia and Canada, the principle of proportionality has
been applied to test the validity of statutes (See Cunliffe v.
Commonwealth (1994) 68 Aust. 1J 791. In R v. Oakes (1986) 26 DLR 2001
Dickson, CJ. Of the Canadian Supreme Couri has observed that there are
three important components of he proporiionality test. First, the measures
adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question.
They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations.
In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Secondly,
the means, must not only be rationaly connected to the objective in the
first sense, but should impair as little as possible the right to freedom
in question. Thirdly, there must be proportionality & belween the effects
of the measures and the objective. See also Ross v. Brunswick School
Dishut No. 15: (1996) (1) SCR 825 referring to proporlionality. English
Courts had no occasion to apply this principle to legislation. Aggrieved
parties had to go to the European Court at Strasbourg for a declaration.
67. But where, an administrative nction is challenged as arbitrary
under Article 14 on the basis of Royappa (as in cases where punishments in
disciplinary cases are challenged), the question will be whether the
administrative order is rational or reasonable and the test then is the
Wednesbury test. The Courts would then be confined only to a secondary
role and will only have have to see whether the administrator has done
well in his primary role, whether he has acted illegally or has omitted
velcvant factors from consideration or has taken irrelevant factors intto
consideration or thether his view is one which no reasonable person could
have taken. S his aciion does not satisfy these rules, it is to be treated
as arbitrary. [in G.B. Mahajan vs. Jaigaon Municipal Council]
(MANU/SC/0284/1991: ATR19918C1153 )]. Venkalachaliah, J. (as he then was)
pointed out that reasonablcness of the administrator under Article. 14 in
the context of administrative law has to be judged from the stand point of
Wednesbury rules In 'Tata Cellular vs. Union of India: AIR1996SC11, Indian
WP(C) No.25569/2024 4/5
Express Newspapers os. Union of India (: [1986]159ITR856(SC) ), Suprene
Court Employes; Welfare Association vs. Union of India and Anr.
(1989)IILLJ506SC ) and UP. Financial Corporation v. GEM CAP (India) Pvt.
Ltd, [1993]2SCR149), while Judging whether the administrative action is
arbitrary under Article 14(i.e. otherwise then being discriminatory), this
Court has confined iself to a Wednesbury review always."
Ext.P9 is an illustrative instance Wednesbury unreasonableness. It
is also arbitrary and irrational. It is issued without considering the
petitioner's case.
III. The following prayers may be added as as prayer No.(ia) and
(ib) after III. the present prayer No.(i):
"(ia) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P9, P11 and P12 as
unjust, illegal and arbitrary.
(ib) To declare that the petitioner has not been physically relieved
from Thrissur and as such he is entitled to be retained at Thrissur"
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this court's order dated
30.07.2024 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.KALEESWARAM RAJ, THULASI
K. RAJ, CHINNU MARIA ANTONY & APARNA NARAYAN MENON, Advocates for the
petitioner in I.A/WP(C) and of SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN Advocate for R3 to R7 in
I.A/WP(C), the court passed the following:
ORDER
This is an application for amendment.
Heard. Allowed.
Petitioner to file amended writ petition.
Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, JUDGE
EXHIBIT P9 :- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE NO. HR.P &T..197 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
GENERAL MANAGER IN CHARGE, SBI, HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT DATED 20.06.2024.
EXHIBIT R3(d) :- TRUE COPY OF RELIEVING LETTER DATED 15/7/2024 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 :- TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND LEAVE APPLICATION MAILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 20.07.2024.
EXHIBIT P12 :- TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE REJECTION LETTER VIDE NO. DGM(B AND
O)/HR/11/529 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER (HR).DATED 24.07.2024
02-08-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
