IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 18779 OF 2010(S) -------------------------- {IN RA 23/2008 IN OA.830/2006 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH} .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- M. SAIFUDEEN KHAN, S/O.A.MOHAMMED SAHI, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL), POSTAL ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-695015, RESIDING PERMANENTLY AT KAHFIL, DXVI/687, C.V. NAGAR ROAD, SREEKARYAM.P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695 017. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI.SURAJ.S SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SMT.VINEETHA B. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS (CIVIL WING) DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL), NORTH ZONE, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI. 3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (CIVIL), HEAD QUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI. WP(C).NO. 18779 OF 2010(S) :: 2 :: 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, POSTAL ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, BANGALORE. 5. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 6. BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAL LTD. REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BSNL, CORPORATE OFFICE, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 7. DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (ELECTRICAL), DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM, SANCHAR BHAVAN, 20 ASOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI -1. SC FOR BSNL SRI.MATHEWS K. PHILIP ASG SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18779 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. On the assumption that a particular representation made by the petitioner was pending for consideration and that the same has not been considered with due procedure, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench ordered O.A.No.830/06, directing disposal of that representation appropriately. 2. Later, the establishment found that the said representation was actually considered even before that, by following the due procedure by putting it up to the appropriate official. The establishment hence filed a review petition against the order in O.A.No.830/06 and also sought condonation of delay in filing it. The W.P.(C).No.18779 of 2010 :: 2 :: writ petitioner objected to the application for review and the application to condone the delay. It was contended that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain a review petition after a particular time limit and that there was no power to condone delay in terms of the Rules. It was further argued that there was no ground to condone delay or to review the order passed on the original application. 3. By the impugned Ext.P11 order, the Tribunal, making reference to the decisions in K.Ajith Babu and others v. Union of India and others {1997(6) SCC 473} and Mahabir Singh v. Subhash and others {2008(1) SCC 358} and also to the Full Bench decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, in Nand Lal Nichani & others v. Union of India {CAT) Vol.II, 85} held W.P.(C).No.18779 of 2010 :: 3 :: that the Tribunal has the power to review and also to condone the delay on sufficient cause being shown. The scope of review under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act was noticed to be similar to that of the Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Looking at Ext.P11 in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner, the last paragraph may suggest that after having held that the Tribunal has power to condone delay and sit in review of the earlier order, the Tribunal granted the application to condone delay and for review, without considering them on merits. But, on a deeper consideration and a wholesome reading of Ext.P11, it is clear that the Tribunal was conscious of the fact that W.P.(C).No.18779 of 2010 :: 4 :: the file notings apparently suggest that the stand of the establishment was that due procedure was followed. This is what is reflected in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Ext.P11 order. It may be true that the said view was not reiterated by the Tribunal in the last paragraph of Ext.P11. That does not vitiate the decision of the Tribunal. 5. We are also of the view that as of now, no situation has arisen, which could be taken as a ground to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner, to prevent any irreparable injury, since the Tribunal has decided to re-hear the original application. In this view of the matter, we deem that it is only necessary that the right of the writ petitioner to challenge Ext.P11 is also W.P.(C).No.18779 of 2010 :: 5 :: preserved for being raised, if necessary, after the Tribunal renders its final decision on the original application following Ext.P11. With such liberty, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.