Ramachandran v. Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/28TH ASWINA, 1939** **OP(C).No. 2938 of 2017 (O) --------------------------OS.NO. 1209/2017 OF I ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ------------------** ## **PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF :** ## **-------------------------------------** **RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 58 YEARS, INTHUKANTHAM, A N (71) B, ADARSH NAGAR, THEKKUMMOODU, PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004** ## **BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS :** **------------------------------------------------** **1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001** **2. HEALTH INSPECTOR GR-1, KANNAMOOLA WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION ZONAL OFFICE, KANNAMOOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001** **3. V.S VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, CRA 103,TC 2/1514-3, OPPOSITE COSMOPOLITAN HOSPITAL, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004** **R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,** **R3 BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **OP(C).No. 2938 of 2017 (O)** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **---------------------------------------** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN RCP NO 34/2014 DATED 20-10-2015** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22-02-2012** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE YEAR 2013-14** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE YEAR 2014-15** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE YEAR 2015-16** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.1209/2017** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF I.A NO 4950/2017 IN O.S NO.1209/2017** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO 4950/2017 IN O.S NO.1209/2017 DATED 29-08-2017** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF IN I.A NO 4950/2017 DATED 16-09-2017** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASSAR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25-09-2017** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17-10-2016** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03-11-2016** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P(C) NO.35893/2016 DATED 16-09-2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** **2/-** **-2-** ## **OP(C).No. 2938 of 2017 (O)** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT R3(A) COPY OF THE FIR NO.0028/2017 REGISTERED BY THE MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE DATED 5/1/2017** **EXHIBIT R3(B) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/06/2016 IN OP(CIVIL) NO.2799/2016.** **EXHIBIT R3(C) COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT IN IA.NO.5596/2017 IN IA.NO.4950/2017 IN OS.NO.145/09 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.** **----------------------------------------------O.P(C) No.2938 of 2017 -----------------------------------------------** Dated this the 20th day of October, 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1209/2017 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is before this Court in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking an order to set aside Ext.P11 order dated 16.9.2017 of the said court and to restore the order of temporary injunction granted in Ext.P9 order dated 29.8.2017 in I.A. No.4950/2017 in O.S.No.1209/2017. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, the learned Standing Counsel for the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation representing respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2 and also the learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent/ additional 4th defendant. 3. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is as to the legality or otherwise of Ext.P11 order passed by the court below in I.A No.4950/2017, whereby the order of temporary injunction granted by Ext.P9 order stands O.P(C) No.2938 of 2017 :-2-: vacated. 4. By Ext.P9 order dated 29.8.2017 in I.A.No.4950/2017 the court below granted an order of temporary injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2 and their men from closing down the hotel or causing any disturbance to the peaceful and smooth running of the hotel business by the petitioner/plaintiff in the plaint schedule property, till the disposal of the suit. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent herein and another got themselves impleaded as additional 3rd and 4th defendants in that suit. 5. The leaned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent/ additional 4th defendant would submit that additional 3rd and 4th defendants have filed objections to I.A.No.4950/2017 and they have also filed I.A.No.5598/2017 for vacating Ext.P9 order of temporary injunction. After detailed hearing, the Munsiff's Court vacated Ext.P9 order of temporary injunction by Ext.P11 order. The learned Senior Counsel would also point out that the petitioner/plaintiff is in occupation of the plaint schedule building even without paying the security deposit of Rs.20,00,000/payable on 1.10.2016, in terms of Ext.P1 order dated 20.10.2015 O.P(C) No.2938 of 2017 :-3-: of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram in R.C.P.No.34/2014 and also the rent arrears of Rs.10,00,000/- till the date of compromise, i.e., 16.10.2015, payable on or before 1.2.2016. The petitioner/plaintiff did not even pay the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.50,000/- from 5.10.2015 to 4.10.2016 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.60,000/ from 5.10.2016 onwards. 6. The learned Senior counsel for the 3rd respondent/ additional 4th defendant would also submit that the 1st respondent Corporation has already initiated steps against the petitioner/ plaintiff for conducting hotel without licence. Then the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner is legally entitled to conduct the hotel, as he is having 'deemed licence', in view of the statutory provisions under the Kerala Municipality Act. 1994. 7. Ext.P11 order of the court below whereby Ext.P9 order of temporary injunction stands vacated reads thus; “Petitioner represented. R1 represented. Order dated 25.8.2017 ceases to exist. For objection and hearing 9.10.2017.” 8. In **Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union [(1974) 3 SCC 318]** the Apex Court held that, O.P(C) No.2938 of 2017 :-4-: while considering the challenge made against an award under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 held that the giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfitness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi judicial authorities to the Apex Court by special leave granted under Article 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to O.P(C) No.2938 of 2017 :-5-: the Court. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. Therefore, the Apex Court emphasised that judicial and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. 9. In **Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers [(2010) 4 SCC 785]** the Apex Court held that, the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. 10. In **Shukla and Brothers' case (supra)** the Apex Court held further that, a litigant who approaches the court with O.P(C) No.2938 of 2017 :-6-: any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that judgment. 11. In **English v. Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd. [(2002) 1 WLR 2409]** the Court of Appeal held that, a judicial decision which affected the substantive rights of the parties should be reasoned, although some judicial decisions, e.g. interlocutory case management decisions, did not require reasons; that, while a judge was not obliged to deal with every O.P(C) No.2938 of 2017 :-7-: argument or identify or explain every factor which weighed with him, the issues the resolution of which were vital to his conclusion should be identified and the manner in which he resolved them briefly but clearly explained, so that the judgment enabled the parties and any appellate tribunal readily to analyse the reasoning essential to his decision. 12. Admittedly, in the instant case, Ext.P11 order of the court below is a cryptic order, which does not disclose any reason whatsoever to vacate Ext.P9 order of temporary injunction. Such an order passed by the court below suffer from vice of arbitrariness. Since giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice, such an order passed by the court below must speak on its face. A cryptic order passed by the court below like Ext.P11, which is under challenge in this original petition, virtually makes the appellate jurisdiction under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code nugatory and ineffective, inasmuch as, such an order which does not disclose any reasons will be of little assistance to the appellate court, while analysing the reasoning essential to such a decision. 13. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the O.P(C) No.2938 of 2017 :-8-: decisions referred to supra, Ext.P11 order of the court below vacating Ext.P9 order of temporary injunction, cannot be sustained. 14. In the result, this original petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P11 order of the court below and directing the said court to pass a reasoned order in I.A. No.4950/2017 in O.S.No.1209/2017, after considering the rival contentions, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within **three weeks** from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 15. The fact that the petitioner/plaintiff is not presently running the hotel in question is not in dispute, as the said fact has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments. Therefore, **status quo as on today** shall continue till a decision is taken by the court below, as directed above. All the contentions raised by both sides are left open. ## Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge