IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 29831 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- 1. R.KANAKAMANI THAMPURATTY W/O.P.SUNDAR RAJAN, POONJAR KOVILAKAM NOW RESIDING AT 41/696,ST MARTIN CHURCH ROAD PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 682 025, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. P.SURENDRA VARMA RAJA S/O.P.R.RAMA VARMA RAJA, POONJAR KOVILAKAM VIJAYADHAMAM PALACE, TYHONNALLORE, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.MAHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE SECRETARY,LAW LEGISLATION (E) DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 2. M/S. TATA TEA LTD., HAVING OTS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.I BISHOP LEROY ROAD, KOLKATHA -1, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, ALONG WITH W.P(C)Nos. 892 AND 3241 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 29831 OF 2010 & W.P.(C) Nos. 892 AND 3241 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 22nd February , 2011 J U D G M E N T The grievance involved in all these writ petitions is with regard to the steps allegedly being taken to transfer the 'civil disputes' pending before the concerned civil courts to be adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted under the 'Munnar Special Tribunal Act, 2010'. The vires of the enactment is also under challenge in all the writ petitions . 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The challenge is mainly on the ground that the 'civil disputes' between the parties concerned are not actually intended to be referred to the Tribunal and that there is no jurisdiction or competence for the Tribunal to have it decided. Reference is made to the relevant provisions of the Act and also to the entries in the relevant lists of the Constitution, highlighting the challenge as to the vires of the statute. W.P.(C) No. 29831 OF 2010 & W.P.(C) Nos. 892 AND 3241 OF 2011 2 4. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that a similar matter had already come up for consideration before this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 3487 of 2011, which was finally considered and disposed of, as per the judgment dated 03.02.2011. Definition of the term 'Dispute' as given under Section 2(d) of the Munnar Special Tribunal Act, 2010 and the submissions with regard to the scope and intent of the Act, as put forth by the learned Addl. Advocate General (that, when the legislation was made what was actually intended, was only to make the Act applicable to the disputes involving the Government and was not intended for resolving the private disputes) were specifically adverted to. The submission made as above, is contained in paragraph No.4 of the judgment , which is extracted below: “4. When this writ petition was taken up for consideration, on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General appeared. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, when the legislation was made what was intended was only to make the Act applicable to disputes W.P.(C) No. 29831 OF 2010 & W.P.(C) Nos. 892 AND 3241 OF 2011 3 involving Government and that the Act is not intended for resolving private disputes. It is also submitted that a proposal is already pending before the Legislature to amend the provisions of the Act including Section 2(d) confining the definition of “dispute” only to disputes involving Government and Government properties. In view of the position as clarified by the learned Additional Advocate General, it is unnecessary to consider the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners. ” Taking note of the above submission, the writ petition was disposed of, holding that pending amendment of the Act, suits involving only disputes between private parties and not involving the Government, Government properties shall not be transferred to the Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of the Act. 5. This Court does not find it necessary to take a different course. In the said circumstance, the writ petitions are disposed of, in terms of the above verdict. It is also made clear that the challenge raised by the petitioners with regard to the constitutional validity of the enactment is left open. 6. In view of disposal of the cases as above, this Court W.P.(C) No. 29831 OF 2010 & W.P.(C) Nos. 892 AND 3241 OF 2011 4 finds that there is no necessity to file any statement as already directed by this Court, more so, since the issue is left open. 7. Taking note of the submission made by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) 3241 of 2011, it is made clear that, what is intended and contemplated to be within the jurisdiction of the civil courts is nothing but 'civil disputes'. It is further made clear that the disposal of W.P.(C) 892 of 2011 will not stand in the way of the first petitioner therein from getting W.P.(C) No. 22001 of 2009 amended, in accordance with law, if any grievance with regard to the provisions of the 'Act' exists. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk