High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-25Ext.P9 quashed; WP(C).9330/2012 allowed; WP(C)....

In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam – W.P.(C).Nos. 9330 of 2012 (M) & 21626 of 2012

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.9330 of 2012 (M) and WP(C).No.21626 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2021-03-25
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P9 is quashed and WP(C).9330/2012 is allowed. WP(C).21626/2012 would not be sustainable as the complaint at the instance of the petitioner therein may revive.
Final Disposition: Ext.P9 quashed; WP(C).9330/2012 allowed; WP(C).21626/2012 would not be sustainable

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. A. Jayakrishnan, Vice Chancellor, University of Kerala
The Registrar, University of Kerala
B. Rajendran Agra

Respondents

Sri. B. Rajendran Agra
KERALA UPA LOK AYUKTA (Office of the Kerala Lok Ayukta)
Dr. A. Jayakrishnan, Vice Chancellor, University of Kerala
The Registrar, University of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• George Poonthottam
• Thomas Abraham
• S.Sunil Mauryan
• Sukumaran Nainan Oommen

Counsels for Respondents

• S. S. Sunil Mauryan
• Sukumaran Nainan Oommen
• Renu D.P.
• Terry V. James
• Thomas Abraham

Case Synopsis & Summary

The judgment addresses two connected writ petitions challenging a Lok Ayukta interim order in Complaint No.2297/2011. Petitioner-drivers include the University of Kerala (Dr. A. Jayakrishnan, Vice Chancellor, and the Registrar) and B. Rajendran Agra, who filed WP(C).No.9330/2012 and WP(C).No.21626/2012 respectively. The Lok Ayukta, after considering rival contentions, granted an interim injunction restraining the University from appointing anyone to the post of Finance Officer other than the complainant pending disposal of the complaint. The second petition attacks the minutes of the selection committee dated 11.5.2009 and 17.2.2010, alleging malafides and violations of Kerala University First Statutes 1977 (Statutes 34 and 39). The petitioners contend that the interim injunction effectively grants main relief and is untenable in light of Bank of Maharashtra v. Race Shipping & Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. (JT 1995 (3) JT SC 175). The court also examines maintainability under the Lok Ayukta Act, Schedule II and Section 8. After hearing, the court holds that Ext.P9 (the interim order) is not sustainable as it amounts to granting the main relief; Extinguishes WP(C).9330/2012’s relief and notes WP(C).21626/2012 may revive the complaint if the interim order is removed. The judgment emphasizes restraint on interim orders, adherence to statutory processes for appointments, and the proper scope of Lok Ayukta proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala University First Statutes 1977 – Statutes 34 and 39Lok Ayukta Act – Schedule IILok Ayukta Act – Section 8

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Interim orders cannot substitute for main relief
Abuse of process in invoking interim relief
Maintainability considerations under statutory complaints (Lok Ayukta Act)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that Ext.P9 is not sustainable as it effectively grants the main relief in the main complaint, contrary to the principle expounded in Bank of Maharashtra v. Race Shipping & Transport Co. Ltd. (JT 1995 (3) JT SC 175). They argued that the Lok Ayukta complaint, under Schedule II of the Lok Ayukta Act, should be resolved on its own terms, and the interim order cannot pre-empt the final adjudication. They contended that the minutes of the selection committee (11.5.2009 and 17.2.2010) were violative of Statutes 34 and 39 of the Kerala University First Statutes 1977 and that maintainability under the Lok Ayukta Act should be properly examined. They urged quashing Ext.P9 and dismissing or reframing the challenge.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submitted that the Lok Ayukta order was issued to prevent improper appointments and maintain integrity in the process; they argued that the complaint's maintainability under the Lok Ayukta Act and Schedule II cannot be casually brushed aside; the minutes of the selection committee were allegedly malafide and in violation of statutes, thus requiring scrutiny within the Lok Ayukta proceedings. They maintained that interim measures were necessary to prevent prejudicial acts during the inquiry and that the petitions should be disposed of with the interim order in place or in accordance with statutory provisions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bank of Maharashtra v. Race Shipping & Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Another	JT 1995 (3) JT SC 175	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that interim relief cannot amount to main relief; Ext.P9’s relief was considered impermissible in view of this principle.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam – W.P.(C).Nos. 9330 of 2012 (M) & 21626 of 2012 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.9330 OF 2012(M)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 DR.A.JAYAKRISHNAN VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.** - **2 THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY. SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 B.RAJENDRAN AGRA, KP II/383, AKSHAYA GARDENS, NALANCHIRA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 015.** - **2 KERALA UPA LOK AYUKTA** **OFFICE OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.** - **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUNIL MAURYAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUKUMAR NAINAN OOMMEN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).21626/2012(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.9330 & 21626 OF 2012** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.21626 OF 2012** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **B.RAJENDRAN AGED 44 YEARS AGRA, KP II/383, AKSHAYA GARDENS, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 015.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUNIL MAURYAN SRI.SUKUMAR NAINAN OOMMEN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 DR.A.JAYAKRISHNAN VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.** **2 THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695034.** **3 KERALA UPA LOK AYUKTA (REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR) OFFICE OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** **R1, R3 BY SMT.RENU. D.P., SC, LOK AYUKTA R1 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA R1 BY ADV. SRI.TERRY V.JAMES** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).9330/2012(M), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.9330 & 21626 OF 2012** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[ WP(C).9330/2012, WP(C).21626/2012 ]** ## **Dated this the 25th day of March 2021** Challenge in W.P(C)No.9330/2012 (first writ petition) has been laid to Ext.P9 order passed by Kerala Lok Ayuktha in IA No.1105/2011 in complaint No.2297/2011. The aforementioned complaint was filed by Sri.B.Rajendran, who is the party respondent in this writ petition and the petitioner in W.P(C).21626/2012 (second writ petition), alleging that University of Kerala abused official position as public servants to favour certain candidates by showing special interest, resulting into undue harm and hardship to the complainant. The Lok Ayukta after considering the rival contentions, granted an interim injunction restraining the University from appointing anybody to the post of Finance Officer in the University of Kerala other than the complainant till the disposal of the complaint. 2. The second writ petition is filed challenging the minutes of selection committee held on 11.5.2009 in Ext.P2 and 17.2.2010 being **WP(C).No.9330 & 21626 OF 2012** **4** malafide, illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Statutes 34 and 39 of the Kerala University First Statutes 1977. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the first writ petition submitted that the order of injunction tantamount to allowing the complaint, which is not permissible in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Bank of Maharashtra v. Race Shipping & Transport Co. Pvt. Ld & Another** (JT 1995 (3) JT SC 175). 3. The second writ petition has been filed as a counter blast to the first writ petition to stall the process of appointment of the Finance Officer. The complaint was also not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Lok Ayukta Act as it was based upon the allegations and not the grievances. In the first instance the question of maintainability of the complaint was required to be gone into. 4. Smt.Nisha Nair, representing Sri.Sunil Mauryan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in the first writ petition and petitioner in the second writ petition submitted that order of the Lok Ayukta was passed, but taking into consideration the materials on record Section 8 do not debar the maintainability of the complaints with regard to appointments and promotions as per the provisions of Schedule II under the aforementioned provisions. There had been **WP(C).No.9330 & 21626 OF 2012** **5** impartiality and abuse of process. It is on that account the Lok Ayukta was impelled to pass the interim order. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books. Operative portion of Ext.P9 read thus: “In the result, interim injunction is granted restraining the respondents from appointing anybody to the post of Finance Officer in the University of Kerala Other than the complainant till the disposal of the complaint.” 5. In view of the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment cited (supra) it is settled law that where interim order in substance grants the reliefs, in the event of complaint being allowed, the same is a manifest error. This is what has been done in the instant case. 6. The second writ petition has been filed as a counter blast. Basically it tantamount to circumvention of the interim order seeking further stay of process of appointment. There is no such interim order in the second writ petition, except that selection made to the post of the Finance Officer would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 7. Be that as it may, I am in agreement with the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the first writ petition that Ext.P9 is not sustainable as it tantamount to allowing the main relief in the main complaint, which is a clear error thus without jurisdiction. **WP(C).No.9330 & 21626 OF 2012** **6** Accordingly Ext.P9 is quashed and W.P(C).9330/2012 is allowed. W.P(C).21626/2012 would not be sustainable as the complaint at the instance of the petitioner therein, may revive. **SD/** **AMIT RAWAL** **JUDGE** **Jm/** **WP(C).No.9330 & 21626 OF 2012** **7** ## **APPENDIX OF 9330/2012** ## **PETITIOONERS EXHIBITS:** **P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.A.2.136/08 DATED 3.7.2008** **P2: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF FINANCE OFFICER, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DAT3D 11.5.2009.** **P3: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF FINANCE OFFICER, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 17.2.2020.** **P4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 17.4.2010.** **P5:COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.2297/2011 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 14.10.2011** **P6: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT I.A.NO.110.5/2011 IN COMPLAINT NO.2297/2011 DATED 25.10.2011.** **EXT.P7: COPY OF THE CONTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.1105/2011 IN COMPLAINT NO.2297/2011** **P8:COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PWETITIONER IN COMPLAINT NO.2297/2011 ON 12.12.2011** **P9: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.1105/2011 IN COMPLAINT NO.2297/2011 DATED 27.3.2012** **WP(C).No.9330 & 21626 OF 2012** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF 21626/2012** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** **P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NOI.AD.A1.2.136/08 DATED 3.7.2008** **P2: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF SELECTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 11.5.2009** **P3: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF SELECTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 17.2.2010.** **P4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.A.2660/2010 DATED 17.4.2010** **P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.2297/2011 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE LOK AYUKTA** **P6: COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.3.2012 IN I.A. NO. 1105/2011 IN COMPLAINT NO.2297/2011 BY THE HONOURABLE LOK AYUKTA.**