IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 659 of 2010(S)
1. K.Y.THOMAS, BSNL SENIOR SECTION
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER,
3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.JAMES FLETCHER
For Respondent :SHRI.P.J.PHILIP SC FOR BSNL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :02/08/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
&
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
R.P.NO.659 OF 2010
IN
W.P.(C).NO.2493 OF 2010
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
The respondent in the writ petition is the review petitioner.
He was an employee of BSNL. It appears that he was surety to
certain transactions. The creditors moved the civil court or
initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.
They obtained various restraint orders by way of injunctions or
otherwise. The garnishee, namely, the employer of the review
petitioner was thus bound by those orders to abstain from
releasing even the retirement benefits. May be, those decisions
are unsustainable. The employee, the review petitioner herein,
moved this Court by filing a writ petition seeking reliefs. On
BSNL being brought under the coverage of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, the writ petition stood transferred for being
R.P.659/10 2
considered as a transferred application by the C.A.T., Ernakulam
Bench. With that, the consideration of the case stood
circumscribed by the jurisdictional limits of the Tribunal under
the Administrative Tribunals Act. The Tribunal ordered the
establishment to release the amounts due to the employee
towards commuted value of pension, gratuity etc. The
establishment filed the writ petition before this Court. We had
necessarily to hold that the Tribunal have over-stepped its
jurisdiction in as much as it could not have sat in judgment over
the correctness of the decision of the civil court or the statutory
orders under the Revenue Recovery Act imposing injunctions or
ordering attachment. We, therefore, issued the judgment sought
to be reviewed.
2. We heard Adv.Sri.James Fletcher on behalf of the review
petitioner quite in extenso. He says that had the writ petition
continued here, the matter could have been looked at differently.
As of now, we cannot say anything as to how this Court could
have moulded the reliefs, if possible, having regard to the
submissions now being made. But, we find that it is beyond, for
R.P.659/10 3
us to say in the case in hand, because the writ petition stood
transferred to the C.A.T, to be decided in terms of the
Administrative Tribunals Act. The writ petitioner, unfortunately,
had not persuaded this Court to exercise jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Not only that, though
the learned counsel very persuasively pointed out that in terms
of the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, the validity of
attachments may be contrary to the statutory provisions, it is
not within the limits of the Tribunal to have gone into that issue.
It is either for the debtor, suffering the attachment, namely, the
review petitioner or for the garnishee, the establishment, to seek
relief from the attaching authorities or authorities which have
issued injunctions. This, obviously was either the civil courts or
the authorities under the Revenue Recovery Act.
3. The learned counsel for the establishment states that
during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, the
establishment had moved some of the attaching courts seeking
modification of its liabilities as garnishee and had been able to
obtain a couple of favourable orders, though some matters are
R.P.659/10 4
still pending.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we refuse to interfere the
order sought to be reviewed. We, however, direct that if the
review petitioner files any application before any civil court or
any authority under the Revenue Recovery Act, to lift the
attachment or injunction, such authority shall expeditiously take
up the review petitioner’s request and consider it and issue
orders in accordance with law with no delay. Review petition is
ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp
R.P.659/10 5