K.Muraleedharan Nair vs Union Of India

A.J. Desai, C.J.

By way of the present petition in the nature of public interest, the petitioner has prayed as under:

“i) to declare that the objectives for which the 5th respondent-Tribunal was established are not achieved mainly, reduction of work load in the High Court and the expenditure incurred by the Government in conducting cases in the High Court is in no manner reduced or materialised, by reason of each and every decision on merit of the Tribunal is being challenged before this Hon'ble Court, the continuance of the 5th respondent-Tribunal does not serve any purpose apart from causing heavy financial burden on the State's Exchequer and added expenditure, inconvenience, hardships to the litigants and requires to be abolished in public interest;

ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 to 4 to consider the necessity, feasibility and desirability of continuing 5th respondent-Tribunal as requested in Ext. P-23 representation objectively and to take appropriate decision in regard to abolition of 5th respondent-Tribunal in discharge of its constitutional obligation and its executive responsibility;

iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing Respondents 3 and 4 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P23 representation filed by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a time-frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

iv) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the request made by the Petitioner by evaluating the performance of the Tribunal and take a fresh decision, which may be communicated to the first respondent for appropriate action by de-notifying the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.”

Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is not present.

A counter affidavit dated 03.02.2016 has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 i.e., the State Authorities. It has been stated therein that a similar issue was dealt with in other proceedings by this court and the same came to be decided in Sreekantan v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KLT 394) and Basil Attipetty v. Union of India (2012 (1) KLT 841).

In view of the issue being covered by the aforesaid two decisions, nothing survives for further adjudication in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.