IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 659 of 2010(S) IN W.P.(C).2493 OF 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2493/2010 Dated 08/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C).2493/2010: ---------------------- K.Y.THOMAS, SENIOR SECTION SUPERVISOR (RETIRED), EMP NO.1436008, BSNL STAFF QUARTERS II, PANAMPILLY NAGAR KOCHI 682036. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES FLETCHER RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, ERNAKULAM, BSNL BHAVAN, COCHIN. 3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF PGMT, ERNAKULAM, BSNL BHAVAN, COCHIN. ADV. SHRI.P.J.PHILIP, SC FOR BSNL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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