Kerala High Court Lays Down Guidelines Fixing Time Limit For Statutory Authorities To Pass Orders In Matters Where Hearing Is Concluded

Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan made this observation while hearing a petition challenging the order of the Principal Secretary, Industrial Department. The Court noted that the authority took more than 6 months' time to pass an order after concluding the hearing. It said that such delayed orders can be prejudicial to the parties. The Court said that even for constitutional courts, a time limit is fixed for pronouncing orders after concluding the hearing. The Supreme Court in Anil Rai v State of Bihar (2001) had laid down guidelines for High Courts regarding pronouncement of orders after hearings are concluded.

The Court held that delay can be prejudicial to the parties in many ways. The memories may fade, and evidence may be lost due to long delays. The parties incur additional costs, stress and uncertainty. The parties are unable to move on with their lives. The authorities also lose their credibility if decisions are constantly delayed and the public will lose trust in the process. The Court said:

“Delay in passing orders after concluding the hearing can lead to prejudice in several ways. It amounts to denial of justice, loss of credibility, evidence degradation, undue threat and anxiety to the parties and loss of public trust. Long delay can damage the public perception of authorities' efficiency and effectiveness.”

The Court asked the Chief Secretary to issue necessary orders and circulate them to all heads of department within one month.

The petitioner in this case was affected by an order of the Geologist of the Department of Mining and Geology whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 2,45,788 as a royalty fine for removing Red Earth from his property. A few tipper lorries were confiscated from the property of the petitioner. They were allegedly waiting to load red earth extracted from the nearby properties.

The petitioner contended that the lorries were parked without his knowledge and he is not staying near the concerned property. He has not done any mining in his property. The petitioner filed an appeal against this before the department Principal Secretary but the appeal was dismissed.

The Court quashed the demand notice saying that the notice did not follow the principles laid down by this Court in Biju K. Varghese v Geologist, Mining and Geologist Department, District Office, Cherthala (2020) regarding the contents of a notice. The Geologist is directed to reconsider the matter again.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Jomy George, Deepak Mohan

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader Adv. B. S. Syamantak

Case No: WP(C) 31162 of 2018

Case Title: Mathew Philip v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 420