LALITHAMBA BAYI v. STATE OF KERALA — 1985 DIGILAW 122 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. The reliefs prayed for in both the Original Petitions are identical. They are therefore disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner in O.P.3510 of 1982 died and her legal representatives have been impleaded as additional petitioners 2 and 3 as per order dated 13-3-1985 in C.M.P. No.7198 of 1985. The 2nd additional petitioner is the petitioner in O.P. 1722 of 1982. The petitioner in O.P.1722 is the daughter of deceased Sethu Lekshmi Bayi (the petitioner in O.P.3510 of 1982). Sethu Lekshmi Bayi was the Senior Maharani and Ex-Regent of Travancore State. 3. Facts in both the petitions are similar and lie in a very narrow compass. Pursuant to the decision of the Government of India to enhance the allowances to the members of the ruling family of the former Travancore State. taken in October 1950. the then Government' of united State of Travancore and Cochin in their proceedings No.G5-21661/50-C.S.dated 26th October. 1950 enhanced the allowances of all members of ruling family. Accordingly the allowance of the petitioner in O.P. 1722 of 1982 was fixed at Rs.19.000/- per annum payable with effect from 25-10-1950. Similarly the allowance of the petitioner in O.P.3510 of 1982 was fixed at Rs.50.000/- per annum payable with effect from 25-10-1950. Since 25-10-1950 the petitioner in O.P. 1722 of 1982 and deceased Sethu Lekshmi Bayi were receiving the enhanced allowances. The petitioners submitted that the enhancement of the allowances. was sanctioned in lieu. of the various perquisites. the members of the ruling family were enjoying previously. 4. This was the state of affairs. it is submitted. when the Government of Kerala by G.O.MS.No.20/73/TD dated 12-1-1972 ordered that until a final decision is taken in the matter of payment of allowance to the members of the ruling family of Travancore and Cochin. payments will be made at the existing rate subject to a maximum of Rs.250/- per head per mensem. This order is Ext P2 dated 12-1-1973. Thus with effect from 26-2-1972 the petitioners were receiving the allowances only at the rate of Rs. 250/- per mensem. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Government order Ext.P2 is liable to be declared null and void for the reason that it is one passed/issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. in that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before reducing the allowances. 250/- per mensem. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Government order Ext.P2 is liable to be declared null and void for the reason that it is one passed/issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. in that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before reducing the allowances. In support of this plea the learned counsel brought to my notice a judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.428 of 1976. In the said decision this Court declared that the stoppage of allowance to the Senior Maharani (deceased Sethu Lekshmi Bayi) at the rate of Rs.75.000/- per annum would be invalid in law for the reason that before stopping the allowance. no opportunity of being heard was afforded to her. 6. Having come to know of the decision of the Government evidenced by Ext.P2. the petitioners through their counsel sent a representation (Ext.P3) to the Government of Kerala in October 1981 requesting that the petitioners be paid the allowances at the rate fixed pursuant to the decision in Ext.Pl. The learned counsel submitted. that the Government however. continued to pay the allowances at the reduced rate. The petitioners therefore have filed these Original Petitions for the following reliefs: A. To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in connection with Ext.P2 (same in both the O.Ps.) and quash the same in so far as it relates to the reduction of the petitioner's allowance from Rs.50.000/-per annum to Rs.250/-per mensem. B. To issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay allowance to the petitioner at the rate fixed by the Government Order dated 25-10-1950. C. To issue such other writs. directions or orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. The Government in their counter-affidavit (separate counter affidavits have been filed in these petitions) have clearly stated that the Government in the exercise of its executive authority alone have abolished or reduced the sum payable as allowances to the petitioners as also the other members of the former ruling family of Travancore. In the counter it has been stated that "The petitioner cannot claim any legal right to the allowance and in abolishing or reducing it. the question of natural justice will not arise." It is further stated that only after examining all the aspects of the matter. In the counter it has been stated that "The petitioner cannot claim any legal right to the allowance and in abolishing or reducing it. the question of natural justice will not arise." It is further stated that only after examining all the aspects of the matter. the allowances paid to the petitioners were reduced and fixed at Rs. 250/- per month. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed in O.P. 1722 of 1982 the Government have raised a further contention namely that. in as much as the petitioner has. acquiesced in the reduction of allowance as per Ext. P2. she is debarred from challenging it in this proceedings. It has also been contended therein that the petition is liable to be thrown out on the ground of long delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. 8. It is not the case of the Government that the impugned order was passed after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The Government justify the action on the ground that the petitioners have no right to be heard in the matter. The reasons for the reduction (as seen from Ext.P2 order) read: "However. in the letter read as item 4 above the allowances to the members of the families of the former rulers were ordered to be paid till 25-2-1972. In the letters read as item 3 above. Political pensions which had to be continued to be paid were ordered to be stopped with effect from 25-2-1972. consequent on the announcement by the State Finance Minister in his Budget speech that the Government proposed to discontinue payment of such pensions. 2. The entire question regarding the continuance or otherwise of Political and allied pensions is under examination by Government. Pending final orders on the question. Government are plessed to order that 'on account' payment in respect of allowances to members of the families of the former rulers of Travancore and Cochin and in respect of Political pensions will be made from the date of their stoppage. viz. 26-2-1972 at the existing rate subject to a maximum of Rs. 250/- per head per mensem." (emphasis supplied) Though it is stated in Ext.P2 that "Pending final orders on the question" the payment is made "on account". viz. 26-2-1972 at the existing rate subject to a maximum of Rs. 250/- per head per mensem." (emphasis supplied) Though it is stated in Ext.P2 that "Pending final orders on the question" the payment is made "on account". what is discernible from the pleadings is that the Government have taken the final decision to reduce the allowance to Rs. 250/- per mensem per member of the family. It can thus be seen that the Government have no definite case regarding the payment of allowance after Ext.P2. 9. It is in this backdrop. this Court has to consider the scope of the reliefs prayed for in these Original Petitions. 10. There is no dispute that the petitioners are being given the allowances at the reduced rate since 1972. The payments admittedly are payments "on account". "On account" is an expression which has not been defined in the order. What then is the meaning of the expression "on account". "On account" means "in part payment; in partial satisfaction of an account. The phrase is usually contrasted within full'" (Black's Law Dictionary. Revised 4th edition. page 1240). Thus it can be seen that the petitioners were led to believe that the payment of Rs. 250/-ordered by Ext P2 is only part payment towards the allowances they were till then drawing. 11. From the pleadings in the case it can be inferred that immediately on realising that the Government by Ext.P2 have refixed the allowance at the reduced rate of Rs. 250/- per mensem per member although the said payments were made "on account". the petitioners made the representation (Ext. P3) to the Government requesting that the allowances as fixed under Ext.P1 itself should be paid to them. Only when the petitioners realised that they would not get redressal of the grievances at the hands of the Government they filed the Original Petitions. In these circumstances. I am of the view that the contention of the Government that the Original Petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay is not sustainable. Though such a plea has been taken in the counter filed in OP. 1722 of 1982. there is no such plea taken by the Government in OP. 3510 of 1982. This conduct of the Government only shows that the Government is not very serious about it. Whatever that be. in the circumstances of the case. Though such a plea has been taken in the counter filed in OP. 1722 of 1982. there is no such plea taken by the Government in OP. 3510 of 1982. This conduct of the Government only shows that the Government is not very serious about it. Whatever that be. in the circumstances of the case. the said contention is liable to be rejected. I accordingly reject the same. 12. Now turning to the other aspect of the case. the question arises whether the impugned order can be declared null and void for the reason that it was issued in violation of principles of natural justice. in that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners before it was issued. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this question is covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Appeal 428 of 1976. 13. The question that arose in Writ Appeal 428 of 1976 was this: 14. "Whether in pursuance of the suggestion of the Viceroy. or otherwise. in October 1932 the Maharaja of the Travancore State sanctioned 'allowance' of Rs. 75.000/-per year to the Regent Maharani was really a pension sanctioned by a 'law' which was binding on the successor States of Travancore-Cochin and Kerala and had not been duly repealed; and if the said payment is found to be a pension or that the same can be taken away by an executive order and without notice to the grantee of that allowance". After considering the case in all its aspects. this Court held as follows: "But the fact remains that even if the proceeding sanctioning the allowance was not a law it was an executive order. The decisions are far too many which have recognised that even in this sphere of executive orders. the principles of fair procedure must be observed. There is no order stopping or cancelling the cash payment; and assuming there is such an order. the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of staing her case against the cancellation of the grant. On this ground. we think the petitioner is entitled to succeed." 15. It is not the case of the Government that the impugned order was passed after notice to the petitioners. That. an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is a nullity. is a well-established proposition of law. Avoid order is no order at all. On this ground. we think the petitioner is entitled to succeed." 15. It is not the case of the Government that the impugned order was passed after notice to the petitioners. That. an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is a nullity. is a well-established proposition of law. Avoid order is no order at all. It does not exist in the eye of law. It is true that such orders would interfere with the rights of citizens until they are vacated by a court of competent jurisdiction. Whatever that be. an order which is void for the reason of having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. remains void for ever. 16. The impugned order Ext.P2 therefore is of no consequence so far as the rights of the petitioners to claim the allowances granted to them under Ext. P1 are concerned. For the reasons stated above. the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Original Petitions. The Original Petitions are accordingly allowed. In the circumstances. I make no order as to costs. Allowed.