- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
K.T Abraham v. The State Of Travancore-Cochin
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Koshi, C.J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was a Superintendent in the Government Secretariat, Trivandrum. By order dated 2-8-1949 he was placed under suspension. By a subsequent order dated 8-9-1949 he was compulsorily retired from service; that second order stated that he would be given "full pension."
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking (a) quashal of the two impugned orders and (b) reinstatement to his former office with reimbursement for loss of pay and emoluments for the period during which he was kept out of office. Subramania Iyer J. dismissed the writ application in limine, holding that the second prayer was inadmissible even if the first prayer were to be granted and that the petitioner had no "cause of action" against the Government in respect of the first prayer. No notice was issued to the Government before that dismissal.
The appellant appealed against the order of Subramania Iyer J. The present opinion is delivered by Koshi, C.J.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether orders passed before the commencement of the Indian Constitution (pre-Constitution orders) can be reviewed by this Court.
- Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the delay between the impugned order (8-9-1949) and the filing of the writ petition (29-1-1953), i.e., whether inordinate delay bars relief.
- Whether the appellant had a "cause of action" against the Government with respect to the impugned orders (an issue raised by the learned Judge below, though the present Court did not decide it).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant sought quashal of the suspension and compulsory retirement orders and reinstatement with reimbursement of pay and emoluments.
- To meet the objection of delay, the appellant's counsel pointed to two applications made to the Government for reconsideration: one dated 12-4-1951 (dismissed 21-5-1951) and another dated 16-4-1952 (dismissed 20-12-1952); counsel relied on these applications to explain or excuse the delay before the High Court.
- At the conclusion of argument, the appellant's counsel requested that if the Court dismissed the appeal on the preliminary point (delay), leave be granted to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The opinion does not provide a detailed account of any arguments or submissions made on behalf of the Government/respondent.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Muthuswamy Ayyar v. United State of Travancore-Cochin, AIR 1950 Trav-C 97 (Full Bench) | That this Court may, on proper cause being shown, issue prerogative writs to review pre-Constitution orders (i.e., pre-Const orders are not beyond review). | The Court invoked this decision to state that it is not precluded from reviewing the impugned orders merely because they were passed before the Constitution came into force; however, despite this power, the Court declined to examine the merits because of inordinate delay by the appellant. |
| Muthiah Chettiar v. Income Tax Commissioner, AIR 1951 Mad 204 | Illustrates that even though there is no specific limitation period for Article 226 petitions, relief may be granted despite delay where there is a satisfactory explanation (e.g., wrong advice and steps taken before another authority). | Used to show that delay is not absolutely fatal in every case; the Court cited it while discussing the principle that petitions should be filed with due diligence and that exceptions may exist depending on circumstances. |
| Nathamooni v. Viswanatha, AIR 1951 Mad 250 | Establishes that this Court will ordinarily refuse to exercise its prerogative writ jurisdiction where there has been long delay; the Court has accepted a practical presumption that petitions filed within 45 days are prima facie with due diligence, and delays beyond that require explanation. | The Court relied on this authority to reinforce the principle that undue delay can justify dismissal of a petition; the Court quoted the decision and its reasoning about the effect of delay on the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction. |
| Rajanandgaon Bus Service Co. v. Appellate Authority, AIR 1953 Nag 80 | Applied the principle that a writ under Article 226 must ordinarily be made soon after the right is infringed; the Court adhered generally to the 45-day presumption in ordinary circumstances. | The judgment was cited as one of the Nagpur decisions supporting the Court's view that undue delay will normally bar relief; it was used to illustrate the operation of the 45-day presumption and the requirement of due diligence. |
| Mahomed Nurul Huda v. Kikabhai, AIR 1953 Nag 251 | Demonstrates application of the rule that delay may be fatal even where the petition was made within a few months; underscores that there is no rigid limitation but due diligence is required. | Used along with the other Nagpur case to show that courts have dismissed petitions as belated where the applicant did not act with sufficient promptness; cited to explain the general principle of exercising discretion against belated petitions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded in a sequence of analytical steps, applying established principles from precedent to the facts before it:
- Jurisdiction over pre-Constitution orders: The Court observed that both impugned orders were passed before the Constitution came into force. It referred to the Full Bench decision in Muthuswamy Ayyar v. United State of Travancore-Cochin (AIR 1950 Trav-C 97) to conclude that the Court is not precluded from reviewing such pre-constitutional orders; therefore, jurisdiction to entertain the challenge existed.
- Decision not to examine merits: Despite jurisdiction to review, the Court declined to go into the merits of the appellant's challenge. The stated and controlling reason was the appellant's "inordinate delay" in approaching the Court for relief.
- Chronology and calculation of delay: The Court identified the proper starting date for measuring delay as the date of the order terminating the appellant's services (8-9-1949). The writ petition was filed on 29-1-1953 — more than three years and four months later. The appellant had made two applications to the Government for reconsideration (12-4-1951 and 16-4-1952), dismissed on 21-5-1951 and 20-12-1952 respectively. The Court considered whether the time taken up by those reconsideration petitions could excuse the delay but concluded that even if the time for the first reconsideration petition were excluded, there remained an unjustified and inordinate delay from 21-5-1951 to 29-1-1953.
- Principle on delay: The Court reiterated the principle that Article 226 prescribes no statutory limitation but that ordinarily petitions must be made soon after the infringement of a right; relief is not ordinarily granted where the applicant has not sought his remedy with due diligence. The Court cited earlier decisions (including Madras and Nagpur cases) that have treated promptness as an essential element in seeking extraordinary writ relief; the 45-day presumption as to due diligence was discussed (but the Court declined to fix a rigid rule here).
- Application to facts: Applying these principles, the Court concluded there was no sufficient justification for the long delay. Allowing the time taken by the second reconsideration petition to be excluded would permit an aggrieved person to defer seeking relief indefinitely, which the Court would not sanction.
- Conclusion: For these reasons the Court concurred with the dismissal of the appellant's petition by the learned Judge below, although it expressly stated its reasons were different from those relied upon by the learned Judge (who had held there was no cause of action and dismissed in limine, without issuing notice to the Government).
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED
Direct consequences and orders:
- The Court concurred in the order below dismissing the appellant's writ petition and dismissed the appeal.
- Costs were awarded: Advocate's fee of Rs. 50/- was imposed.
- Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused; the Court did not consider this a fit case for leave to appeal.
Implications: The decision's immediate effect is to affirm the dismissal of the appellant's petition for relief. The Court relied on established precedent regarding reviewability of pre-Constitution orders and on the well-established discretionary principle that undue delay (lack of due diligence) ordinarily bars extraordinary writ relief. The opinion did not seek to set a new or different rule; rather it applied existing principles to the facts and declined to entertain the petition because of inordinate delay.
This summary is confined strictly to the material and reasoning contained in the provided opinion. No information has been invented or inferred beyond the text of the opinion.
Koshi, C.J:— This is an appeal from an order of Subra-mania Iyer J. dismissing a writ application ‘in limine’.
2. The appellant was a Superintendent in the Government Secretariat, Trivandrum. By an order dated 2-8-1949 he was placed under suspension. By a subsequent order of 8-9-1949 he was compulsorily retired from service. The second order stated that, he will be given ‘full pension.’ The application before the learned Judge was quash these orders and for a writ of ??? or such other directions as the Court may think it necessary for reinstating the petitioner to his former office and to reimburse him for the loss of pay and other emoluments, for the period he was kept out of it. The learned Judge dismissed the application stating that the second prayer was inadmissible even if the first prayer were to be granted and that in the circumstances of the case the petitioner had no ‘cause of action’ against the Government with respect to the first prayer. No notice was issued to the Government before the petition was dismissed.
3. Regard being had to the facts of the case, we do not think it necessary to pronounce upon whether the learned Judge was right in his view that the appellant had no cause of action or cause for complaint against the two impugned orders. Both the orders were passed before the Constitution of India came into force, but in view of the decision in this Court in — ‘Muthuswamy Ayyar v. United State of Travancore-Cochin’, AIR 1950 Trav-C 97 (FB)(A) it is not open to us to hold that we cannot review these orders as they were passed during the pre-Constitution days.
4. In AIR 1950 Trav-C 97 (FB)(A) the Full Bench held (Govinda Menon J. doubting) that ‘on proper cause being shown this Court will issue any one of the prerogative writs which a Court of record and a Superior Court will issue elsewhere under similar circumstances.’ Notwithstanding this decision we do not feel persuaded to go into the merits of the appellant's case; our reason being that it is after inordinate delay that the appellant approached this Court for the redress of his grievances.
5. The writ petition was filed before this Court only on 29-1-1953, when more than three years and four months had elapsed after the order for compulsory retirement was passed. The appellant's counsel sought to get over the difficulty by inviting our attention to two applications the appellant made before the Government for reconsideration of their orders, one on 12-4-1951 and the other on 16-4-1952. The petition of 12-4-1951 was dismissed on 21-5-1951 and the second petition of 164-1952 was dismissed on 20-12-1952. The writ petition was, as mentioned, filed on 29-1-1953, more than a month after the dismissal of the petition dated 16-4-1952.
6. So far as this Court is concerned the proper date to reckon whether there was delay or not is the date of the order terminating the appellant's services (8-9-1949). It was not any statutory remedy that the appellant was pursuing by means of the afore-mentioned petitions. Assuming without deciding, that the time taken by the Government for reconsideration can be taken into account, we cannot find any justification for making allowance for the period during which the second reconsideration petition was pending. To hold otherwise would be to allow an aggrieved person in the position of the appellant to put off his application to the High Court for relief indefinitely. The first petition for reconsideration was dismissed on 21-5-1951 and it was more than one year and eight months after that this Court was moved.
7. Article 226 of the Constitution prescribes no period of limitation, but ordinarily no application under it will be entertained unless it is made soon after the right sought to be protected is infringed. No relief is ordinarily granted to a person who does not seek his remedy under the said Article with due diligence. See — ‘Muthiah Chettiar v. I.T Commr.’, AIR 1951 Mad 204 (B); — ‘Nathamooni v. Viswanatha’ AIR 1951 Mad 250 (C); — ‘Rajanandgaon Bus Service Co. v. Appellate Authority’, AIR 1953 Nag 80 (D) and — ‘Mahomed Nurul Huda v. Kikabhai’, AIR 1953 Nag 251 (E).
8. In AIR 1951 Mad 250 (C). Rajamannar C.J (Somasundaram J. concurring) said:
“Though there is no specific period of limitation, it has generally been the accepted practice of this Court not to exercise the extraordinary power by way of the issue of prerogative writs when there has been a long delay since the passing of the order sought to be quashed. We, therefore, dismiss the application on this ground,………”
9. In that case the delay was not more than one year or at the highest not more than fifteen months. An appellate order of the Court of Small Causes dated 21-10-1948 in a House Sent Appeal was sought to be quashed by an application made to the High Court in 1949. As noticed above the application was dismissed on the ground of delay.
10. The decision in AIR 1951 Mad 204 (B) is by Rajamannar C.J, and Panchapakesa Ayyar J. There, after enunciating the rule the Court gave relief to the party even though the application was made about a year after the impugned order was made. Through wrong advice some time was spent in moving the Central Board of Revenue without success and it was after that the High Court was approached. The Nagpur cases cited are both by Sinha, C.J and Mudholkar, J.
11. In the first case the delay was one year and ten days. In dismissing the petition the learned Judges said:
“Though no period of limitation has been prescribed for an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, yet ordinarily it must be made as soon as any threat to any right is there. Even an application in the ordinary revisional jurisdiction of this Court has got to be made within 45 days of the order moved against. We would therefore in the ordinary circumstances adhere to that rule, viz., that if an application is not made within 45 days of the order impugned, it shall be deemed not to have been made with due diligence, and any applicant moving the High Court beyond that time will have the burden on him of shewing that in spite of due diligence the Court could not have been moved earlier.”
12. In the latter case the petition was made 85 days after the impugned order was passed; still it was dismissed as belated. Referring to the earlier case and in explaining the principle of that decision it was said:
“We would make it clear that we have not prescribed a period of limitation at all. What we have laid down in that case is that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should be made by the party injured with due diligence, that is to say, as Soon after the occasion for seeking redress from this Court arises. If a person delays unnecessarily the making of a petition to this Court, then his petition is likely to be thrown out on that ground alone.
The principle which we have enunciated in this case is not a new one. It is followed in England and has been followed by this Court in several other cases. No doubt, under Article 226 of the Constitution, wide and untrammelled powers have been given to this Court, but those powers are in the discretion of the Court; and when exercising the discretion committed to the Court, and particularly so when the discretion is a very wide ones, the Court must necessarily set some limits to the exercise of that discretion. These limits are certainly not inflexible but they can be altered according to the circumstances of a particular case. We have therefore stated in substance in that case that if a petition is made within 45 days of the order impugned, we would presume that it has been made with due diligence. If, however, it is not made within this period, then we would not presume that it has been made with due diligence and it would be for the petitioner to explain the circumstances which caused the delay in making the petition. This is the rule which we have laid down in that case.
13. We would also like to reiterate that where a special law has been framed with the particular idea of expediting the disposal of a matter, we think it imperative on every party who is aggrieved by the order passed under such a law to approach this Court without undue delay. It seems to us that the period of 45 days, from which would be deducted the time taken up in obtaining a copy of the impugned order, is sufficient for any person who is aggrieved by the order to come up to this Court. But apart from that, if there is any further delay, then he has got to explain it. We would, however, make it clear that this is not a rule of limitation, but only a rule which raises a certain presumption and further that it is meant to apply only to petitions where the main relief sought is quashing an order of an inferior tribunal.”
14. We do not consider it necessary that we should in this Court insist on any definite period. Whether there is delay or not must be decided with respect to the facts of each particular case. We are not now dealing with a case under Article 226, but with one in which interference is, if at all, possible only under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. We do not however think that different considerations should apply to the two classes of cases; indeed in the two cases in AIR 1951 Mad 204 (B) and AIR 1951 Mad 250 (C) cited above, the impugned orders were both pre-Constitution orders.
15. In this case we hold that even if the time taken up by the first reconsideration petition should be left out of count there would be no justification to treat the delay from 21-5-1951 to the date of the writ petition in the same light. It was therefore after inordinate delay that the appellant moved this Court for redress. We accordingly concur in the order appealed from dismissing the appellant's petition, but as explained above our reasons are different from these on which the learned Judge founded his order. The appeal will stand dismissed with costs, Advocate's fee Rs. 50/-.
16. At the conclusion of the argument the appellant's counsel made a request that in case we dismiss the appeal on the preliminary point we should grant leave to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not consider this to be a fit case for appeal. No leave is therefore granted. Order accordingly.
A/R.G.D
17. Appeal dismissed.
Alert