Kerala High Court
Film Distributors Association ... vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2025
2025:KER:49844
W.A No.1483 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1483 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.13759 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 FILM DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION (KERALA), REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY S.S.T. SUBRAMANIAN
AGED 73 YEARS
REG. NO. ERN 480/87, C.C. NO. 66/2643A, ARANGATH CROSS
ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
2 S.S.T. SUBRAMANIAN
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O LATE THIRUPATHI CHETTIYAR, GENERAL SECRETARY, FILM
DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION (KERALA), REG. NO.ERN 480/87,
66/2643A, ARANGATH CROSS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
SMT.M.R.MINI
SMT.MEENA.A.
SMT.NIVEDHITHA PREM.V
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO
SRI.K.C.KIRAN
SHRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER
2025:KER:49844
W.A No.1483 of 2025
2
SRI.ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA
SMT.MARIYA JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES (J) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION KERALA
REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT EX-MAYOR R. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
NEAR DISTRICT COURT, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
REGISTRAR OFFICE 2ND FLOOR, CC 40/1017, PERUMBILLY
BUILDINGS, OPP. MAHARAJAS COLLEGE GROUND, HEAD POST
OFFICE P.O, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682011
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
5 MANOJ N
S/O NARAYANAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, RASIKA SREE MOVIES,
24/920, THYKKADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
BY ADV.SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA FOR R5
SRI.K.P HARISH SR.GOVT. PLEADER FOR R1 TO R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.06.2025, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49844
W.A No.1483 of 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated
16.12.2024 passed in W.P(C) No.13759 of 2024 whereby the writ
petition has been dismissed.
2. The appellants are the petitioners and the respondents
are the respondents in the writ petition.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st appellant is a
registered association under the Travancore-Cochin Literary,
Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955,
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1955') and the 2nd appellant
is its General Secretary. The appellants had filed the writ petition
challenging Ext.P3, which is an order of the Government by which
the District Collector, Ernakulam was directed to initiate
proceedings under Section 25 of the Act of 1955 before the
District Court for removal of existing governing body, formulation
of scheme, and dissolution of the society. Before passing Ext.P3
order, the 5th respondent had filed a complaint alleging
2025:KER:49844
W.A No.1483 of 2025
mismanagement, nepotism, and financial irregularities within the
association. The Government, by invoking Section 19 of the Act of
1955, called for a report from the District Registrar. Ext.P1 is the
report which was submitted by the District Registrar on the basis
of such inspection. Based on the inspection report, Ext.P3 order
has been passed, which is the subject matter of challenge in the
writ petition.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ
petition, held that since the District Collector had only been
directed to file an application under Section 25(1) of the Act, such
application would be adjudicated upon after hearing the affected
parties, no prejudice was caused to the appellants at that stage.
Therefore, without filing such an application, Ext.P3 order could
not have been passed.
5. Learned Single Judge has committed an error in not
considering the fact that the appellants were not afforded an
opportunity of hearing before the Government took a decision
based on the report under Section 19. Secondly, the District
2025:KER:49844
W.A No.1483 of 2025
Registrar appears to have travelled beyond the scope of inspection
contemplated under Section 19(1) by making recommendations
which are purely within the province of the District Court under
Section 25. Thirdly, the Government did not limit itself to
reviewing the report for the purpose of internal administrative
evaluation, but acted upon it to initiate legal proceedings of a
quasi-punitive nature. Learned Single Judge also did not consider
the fact that Ext.P4 is a judgment in the original suit instituted by
the 5th respondent/complainant which has attained finality. The
issue raised by the 5th respondent in the complaint had led to
Ext.P1 inspection report which is substantially the same as those
already adjudicated as per Ext.P4 judgment. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the principles of res
judicata would apply as codified under Section 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 which prohibits relitigation of issues that
have been conclusively decided between the same parties or their
privies in former proceedings. Further, the principle of estoppel
operates to preclude the 5th respondent from raising same
allegations before the Government which is already settled by the
2025:KER:49844
W.A No.1483 of 2025
judgment of the civil court. The Government's action based on the
same set of facts amounts to abuse of process and undermines
the judicial finality. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment passed
by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and as a
consequence Ext.P3 order also deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State,
opposed the prayer and submitted that, under Section 19 of the
Act of 1955, the State Government can authorise the Registrar to
periodically examine the accounts and other books of the society
and submit a report based on such inspection. The District
Collector was authorised to move appropriate application before
the District Court and as such no prejudice has been caused to
the appellants by the Government taking a decision to file an
application under Section 25(1), particularly when Section 19(3)
contemplates only review of the report by the Government. In
view of the aforesaid, the judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge is in accordance with the law, and the appeal deserves to
be dismissed.
7. Heard both sides and perused the records.
2025:KER:49844
W.A No.1483 of 2025
8. The mandate of Section 19(3) clearly states that the
Government may act for better management of the society,
except in respect of matters covered under Section 25(1) of the
Act. The authority to adjudicate on the removal of the governing
body or dissolution of the society lies solely with the District
Court, however, before the Government forms its satisfaction that
such serious action is warranted, and initiate court proceedings
under Section 25, the principles of natural justice require that the
affected party be afforded an opportunity to explain or rebut the
report.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is
right in submitting that Ext.P1 suffers from several deficiencies:
(i) It fails to address the explanations and documents
submitted by the appellants during the inspection.
(ii) It contains recommendations not supported by verified
material particulars or financial records.
(iii) The question of whether the 5th respondent continued
to be a member of the association is also overlooked.
2025:KER:49844
W.A No.1483 of 2025
10. In the case of P.Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala
[2010 KHC 543], this court has held that the Government cannot
usurp the jurisdiction of the District Court under Section 25 by
passing orders that produce the same effect as those covered
under Clause (a) to (c) of Section 25. In the present case, while
no final order under Section 25 was passed, the directions to the
District Collector to institute proceedings without granting prior
hearing to the appellants violates fair procedure. Moreover, the
learned Single Judge, while holding that no prejudice was caused
since the appellants can defend themselves in the civil court,
failed to appreciate that the formation of satisfaction by the
Government without hearing the appellants, vitiates the
administrative decision itself.
11. It is well settled that principles of res judicata apply
even in writ proceedings and not as a technical rule of procedure
but as a matter of public policy to promote finality in litigation and
prevent abuse of judicial process.
12. In Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi [AIR 1960 SC
941], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the principle of
2025:KER:49844
W.A No.1483 of 2025
res judicata is not a mere technical rule, but one that is founded
on public policy, which mandates that a final judgment between
the same parties on the same issue must not be reopened.
13. In Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal
(Regd), Andheri [(1986) 1 SCC 100], the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that even a decision rendered in a writ petition under Article
226 would operate as res judicata if the matter directly and
substantially in issue was finally decided between the parties.
14. In State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers
Organisation [(2006) 4 SCC 683], the Hon'ble Apex Court
re-affirmed that the final pronouncement in a writ petition on an
issue involving adjudication of rights, obligations or status of
parties would attract res judicata and bind the parties in
subsequent litigation. Applying the above principles, the
controversy regarding the 5th respondent's membership,
governance and functioning of the appellant-association has
already been adjudicated by the civil court in Ext.P4 judgment in
the original suit. The Government could not have entertained the
same issues afresh under the guise of administrative review.
2025:KER:49844
W.A No.1483 of 2025
15. On a cumulative assessment of the factual matrix, we
are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment dated
16.12.2024 passed in WP(C) No.13759 of 2024 deserves to be set
aside. The failure to consider the binding nature of Ext.P4
judgment of the civil court, the Government's reliance on a report
that oversteps statutory limits, is in violation of the principles of
natural justice which altogether vitiates the decision making
process.
As a result, the writ appeal stands allowed. The judgment
dated 16.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.13759 of 2024 is set aside
and as a consequence, the order Ext.P3 is also quashed and set
aside. It is further declared that any readjudication of identical
matters already concluded by Ext.P4 judgment in the original suit
would be impermissible in the light of the principles of res judicata
and estoppel. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp
