IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.N. Ramachandran Nair and P.S. Gopinathan, JJ. W.P. (C) No. 13900 of 2012 Dated this the 15th day of June, 2012 Head Note:- Kerala Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 – Section 4 - Jurisdiction to the Bench at Ernakulam - The very purpose of a Bench at Ernakulam is to make it convenient for litigants and practitioners from this region. If Ext. P1 is implemented, what will happen is that when litigants from Ernakulam will get facility to have their cases decided at the Ernakulam Bench, those in northern Districts located farther away from Trivandrum will have to go to Trivandrum for redressing their grievance. Therefore, Ext. P1 is irrational and arbitrary and accordingly direct respondents to provisionally assign to the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal jurisdiction covering Ernakulam and all Districts situated north of Ernakulam. The Principal Bench at Trivandrum should be provisionally given jurisdiction of all southern Districts namely, Trivandrum, Kollam, Pathanamthitta, Alappuzha, Kottayam and Idukki. Ernakulam Bench should have filing facility and the same was in fact accepted by the Government. Therefore, direct the Tribunal to maintain Registry at Ernakulam providing filing facility for the Ernakulam Bench until further orders. For Petitioner:-
For Respondents:-
O R D E R C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Senior Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Counsel takes notice for 9th respondent. Notice to others will be considered later. 2. This is a public interest litigation filed by an Advocate as party in person challenging Ext. P1 issued by the Government assigning jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal between the Principal Bench at Trivandrum and Additional Bench at Ernakulam. The petitioner has sought urgent posting for interim orders because sitting at the Ernakulam Bench is expected to commence next month and the Tribunal will be making posting of cases based on area of jurisdiction assigned under the impugned order. We have heard petitioner in person, Senior Government Pleader for the State and counsel appearing for 9th respondent. 3. After hearing both sides and on going through Exts. P1 and P2, what we notice is that the original proposal as contained in Ext. P2 was to give jurisdiction to the Bench at Ernakulam on all matters arising within Ernakulam and in all Districts of the State north of Ernakulam. However, while issuing Ext. P1 there is a complete deviation by allocating areas covered by Trichur, Palakkad, Malappuram and Kozhikode Districts to the Principal Bench at Trivandrum. The very purpose of a Bench at Ernakulam is to make it convenient for litigants and practitioners from this region. If Ext. P1 is implemented, what will happen is that when litigants from Ernakulam will get facility to have their cases decided at the Ernakulam Bench, those in northern Districts located farther away from Trivandrum will have to go to Trivandrum for redressing their grievance. We, therefore, feel Ext. P1 is irrational and arbitrary and accordingly we direct respondents 1 and 2 to provisionally assign to the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal jurisdiction covering Ernakulam and all Districts situated north of Ernakulam. The Principal Bench at Trivandrum should be provisionally given jurisdiction of all southern Districts namely, Trivandrum, Kollam, Pathanamthitta, Alappuzha, Kottayam and Idukki. 4. Counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of this Court in Sreekantan T. and Others Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2011 (2) KLT 394 : 2011 (2) KHC 342. wherein this Court held that Ernakulam Bench should have filing facility and the same was in fact accepted by the Government. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to maintain Registry at Ernakulam providing filing facility for the Ernakulam Bench until further orders. Post WP (C) after a month. |
