Saneesh Jose and Biju Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala; District Collector, Kottayam; Daisy Chacko; Chacko Devasia; Jose Devasia; Mathew Devasia; Immanuel Antony (W.P.(C) No. 7653 of 2021 (F))
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Anil K. Narendran
- Judgment Date
- 2021-03-24
- Court Decision / Holding
- The petition is disposed with directions: (i) If Ext.P5 is in order and pending, the District Collector shall consider the revision petition and pass appropriate orders, with notice to petitioners, respondents 3 to 8, and other affected parties, within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment; (ii) Petitioners to produce a copy of the writ petition before the District Collector; (iii) Petitioners to forward a copy of this judgment and writ petition to respondents 3-8 by registered post with Acknowledgment Due; no order as to costs.
- Final Disposition
- No order as to costs. The writ petition disposed with directions as noted above.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Saneesh Jose
- Biju Varghese
Respondents
- Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala
- District Collector, Kottayam
- Daisy Chacko
- Chacko Devasia
- Jose Devasia
- Mathew Devasia
- Immanuel Antony
- Kottayam District
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. Mathew John (K)
- • Sri. Mathew Devassi
- • Sri. Aby J Augustine
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. K. Amminikutty, Senior Government Pleader
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges Ext.P4, an order dated 03.12.2020 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and seeks a mandamus directing the District Collector to dispose of Ext.P5, a revision petition dated 19.01.2021 filed under Rule 18(iv) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. The petitioners contend Ext.P5 is pending and requires prompt consideration; it is sought as a remedy against the order in Ext.P4. The petition elaborates the procedural framework under Rule 18, including the timeline for appeals (i), the possibility of condoning delays (ii), the requirement for certified copies (iii), and the inviolability of hearing rights. The respondents’ side, represented by the Government Pleader, submits that if Ext.P5 is in order and pending, the District Collector should consider it and pass appropriate orders with notice to petitioners and affected parties within a timeframe fixed by the court. The court, after hearing both sides, disposes of the petition by directing the District Collector to examine Ext.P5 (if properly filed) and decide in accordance with law, with notice to all concerned, within two months of certified copy of the judgment. It reiterates the principle that mandamus cannot compel actions contrary to law and must conform to statutory provisions. No order as to costs.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- No mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law (State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309)
- No Court has competence to issue a directive contrary to statutory provisions; the rule of law must be upheld (Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI, (2011) 10 SCC 259)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners’ counsel submits that the sole relief sought is consideration of Ext.P5 revision petition filed before the 2nd respondent District Collector against Ext.P4 order. They assert that Ext.P5 is pending and requires expeditious disposal under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 (Rule 18). They emphasize that appeals must be entertained within prescribed time and that revisions must follow proper stamping, certification, and hearing procedure. The petition seeks a direction to decide Ext.P5 in accordance with law and to provide notice to all affected parties, with a copy of the judgment and petition served on respondents.
Contentions of Respondents
The Government Pleader submits that if Ext.P5 is in order and pending, the District Collector shall consider it and pass appropriate orders with notice to petitioners and others within the time fixed by the Court. He underscores the necessity of adherence to the statutory rules (Rule 18) and the right of interested parties to be heard, while ensuring decisions are consistent with law. The arguments stress procedural compliance and lawful exercise of revision powers by the District Collector.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra | (1996) 9 SCC 309 | Positive | Cited to support the proposition that mandamus cannot direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the law or to act contrary to law. |
| Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI | (2011) 10 SCC 259 | Positive | Cited to reinforce that courts cannot direct actions contrary to statutory provisions and must uphold the rule of law. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Saneesh Jose and Biju Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala; District Collector, Kottayam; Daisy Chacko; Chacko Devasia; Jose Devasia; Mathew Devasia; Immanuel Antony (W.P.(C) No. 7653 of 2021 (F)) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.