Kerala High Court
Dr.Ajeesh Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 13 June, 2025
2025:KER:41371
W.A No.2149 of 2024
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.
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 2149 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.35205 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR.AJEESH MATHEW,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW, ASSISTANT MANAGER (VETERINARY)(UNDER
SUSPENSION), M/S. MEAT PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD., HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT EDAYAR.P.O.,KUTHATTUKULAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-696 662, RESIDING AT KALAYATHINAL
HOUSE, EDAMARUKU POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686652
BY ADVS.
SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. (SR.)
SRI.K.R.GANESH
SMT.GOURI BALAGOPAL
SMT.SREELEKSHMI A.S.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2025:KER:41371
W.A No.2149 of 2024
2
2 M/S. MEAT PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT EDAYAR.P.O., KUTHATTUKULAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686662
3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. MEAT PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD.,HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT EDAYAR.P.O.,KUTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 696662
4 DR.SALILKUTTY,
MANAGING DIRECTOR-IN-CHARGE, M/S. MEAT PRODUCTS OF
INDIA LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
EDAYAR.P.O.,KUTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
696662
5 IRENE GRACE KURIAN,
ASSISTANT MANAGER VETERINARY, M/S. MEAT PRODUCTS OF
INDIA LTD.,HAVING IS REGISTERED OFFICE AT EDAYAR.P.O.,
KUTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 696662.
BY SRI.RENJITH THAMBAN (SR.)
SRI.K.P HARISH, GOVT. PLEADER
SMT.K.L. LAKSHMI RANI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.06.2025, THE COURT ON 13.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:41371
W.A No.2149 of 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
2. This intra-court appeal assails the judgment dated
19.12.2024 passed in WP(C) No.35205 of 2024 whereby the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The writ
petition was filed praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction calling for the records leading
to Ext.P13 order and quash the same;
(ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ order or direction calling for the records leading
to Ext.P19 Suspension Order, P20 Memo of Charges
and P21 Statement of Allegations and quash the
same;
(ⅲ) To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing
respondents 2 to 4 to reinstate the petitioner in
service forthwith;
(iv) To declare that the 4th respondent has no authority
or jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner and to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against him as the
2025:KER:41371
W.A No.2149 of 2024
appointment of the 4th respondent is in violation of
Ext.P15 Act;
(v) To declare that Ext.P19, P20 and P21 are illegal and
unenforceable and void;
(vi) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get all
service and monitory benefits ignoring Ext.P19
Suspension Order".
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
basically the appellant had challenged Ext.P19 suspension order,
Ext.P20 memo of charges and Ext.P21 statement of allegations.
The appellant had also challenged the appointment of the 4th
respondent as Managing Director in charge.
4. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner
does not have locus to challenge the appointment of the
4th respondent in collateral proceedings of challenging the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Since the appellant
has no locus to challenge the appointment of the 4th respondent in
the writ petition, learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that
2025:KER:41371
W.A No.2149 of 2024
it need not enter into the merits of the contention regarding the
qualification of the 4th respondent to the post of Managing
Director and dismissed the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
learned Single Judge, only touching the issue with regard to the
first prayer, dismissed the writ petition. However, other prayers
were not at all considered where he had challenged the order of
suspension, memo of charges etc. Learned Single Judge could
not have entertained the writ petition for quashing the
appointment of the 4th respondent, however, other reliefs could
have been considered.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer
and submitted that multiple reliefs giving rise to different cause of
actions cannot be challenged in a single writ petition. Learned
Single Judge was right in holding that a writ of certiorari against
an executive order appointing the 4th respondent would not be
maintainable. In fact, a writ of quo warranto ought to have been
2025:KER:41371
W.A No.2149 of 2024
prayed for. No interference is required in the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard both sides and perused the records.
8. On a perusal of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition,
it is seen that apart from challenge to the appointment of the
4th respondent, the appellant has prayed for various reliefs. From
the order impugned in the writ petition, it can be seen that the
learned Single Judge has not touched the issue with regard to
reliefs (ii) to (vi) and only on the first relief, it has rendered a
judgment holding that writ of certiorari cannot be issued to quash
the appointment of the 4th respondent. At this stage, learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that he would not press the
relief with regard to quashment of appointment of the
4th respondent. However, the main challenge was to the order of
suspension, memo of charges etc. which the learned Single Judge
did not at all consider.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are
of the considered opinion that the finding arrived at by the
2025:KER:41371
W.A No.2149 of 2024
learned Single Judge so far as quashing of the appointment of the
4th respondent to the post of Managing Director, is upheld.
However, since there is no consideration of the other reliefs as
already mentioned, it would be appropriate for us to relegate the
appellant before the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the matter is relegated to the learned Single
Judge to hear the writ petition and decide the same in respect of
prayer clauses (ii) to (vi) only on merits, as expeditiously as
possible.
With the aforesaid direction, this writ appeal stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp
