Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1155 (KER)

Sundaram Govind v. Assain @ Hassain

2011-12-01

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, V.RAMKUMAR

body2011
Judgment : The Order of the Court was pronounced by Barkath Ali,J. – 1. This is a petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Sri Sundaram Govind, Addl. District Judge, Alappuzha to expunge remarks made by this Court against him in judgment dated July 23, 2010 in M.A.C.A. No. 456 of 2006 or in the alternative to declare that the said observations are intended only for future guidance and are not to be relied upon to the detriment of his judicial career. 2. The material averments in the petition, in brief, are these: While the petitioner was working as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, he passed an award dated April 30, 2005 in O.P. (MV) No. 1736/2000. The claimant filed M.A.C.A.No.456/2006 claiming enhancement of the compensation, which was granted by this Court by judgment dated July 23, 2010. In paragraph 4,7 and 8 in that judgment this Court has observed thus: “4. We have extracted the relevant portion of the award to express our anguish and anxiety about the manner in which certain Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act are dealing with claim petitions that are being filed by the victims of accidents. There is yet another reason why we have chosen to do so in this case. We have had occasion to deal with quite a few awards passed by this particular Tribunal, while sitting in this jurisdiction. It has come to our notice that this Tribunal has been adopting this method of disposal almost on a regular basis. We are of that it is time that the learned Judge is reminded that dealing with claim petitions of accident-victims is not such a casual, trivial or lackadaisical exercise. 7. Appellant had produced Ext.A-10 disability certificate in which reference had been made to the various injuries sustained by him. The doctor assessed the disability of the appellant as 23% after examining him and considering the resultant difficulties/discomforts being faced by him. However, the Tribunal did not even advert or refer to the above certificate while considering issue No.2. 8. It can be understood if the Court/Tribunal takes a view either way about the tenability or acceptability of a piece of evidence, be it oral or documentary, after due consideration of the relevant aspects. But the failure of the Tribunal to make even a cursory reference to the crucial document is wholly unjustified. 8. It can be understood if the Court/Tribunal takes a view either way about the tenability or acceptability of a piece of evidence, be it oral or documentary, after due consideration of the relevant aspects. But the failure of the Tribunal to make even a cursory reference to the crucial document is wholly unjustified. We do not propose to make any further observation on this aspect. In our view, the message should be clear by whatever we have indicated above.” 3. According to the petitioner, the observations made by this Court as above are unjustified and unwarranted. While the petitioner was working as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, he was in charge of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. With the pressure of work, he had passed such an award. The certificate of disability Ext. A-10 in that case was not considered, as the same was not proved by examining the doctor who issued the same. Further, Ext.A-10 was issued by a person who is not competent to issue the certificate. This Court has directed to issue a copy of the judgment to the petitioner, but till date he did not receive any copy of the same. On August 1,2011 the petitioner received a communication from the Registrar, Subordinate Judiciary of this Court intimating that based on the observations made in the judgment, the following remarks were entered in his confidential report: 4. The observations made in the judgment in M.A.C.A.No.56/2006 were intended only to augment the quality of his judgments in future, according to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed that the above remarks made against him may be expunged or in the alternative to declare that the same was intended only for future guidance. 5. Sri.P.G.Parameswara Panicker, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly argued that the above observations made in the judgment against the petitioner were only in the nature of future guidance and were never intended to be entered in the confidential report of the petitioner and that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. 6. 5. Sri.P.G.Parameswara Panicker, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly argued that the above observations made in the judgment against the petitioner were only in the nature of future guidance and were never intended to be entered in the confidential report of the petitioner and that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim (A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 703) wherein it has been held that “the High Court can in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction expunge remarks made by it or by a lower court, if it be necessary to do so to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; the jurisdiction is however of an exceptional nature and has to be exercised in exceptional cases only”. It is clear from the above that this Court has jurisdiction to expunge the remarks made by this Court in the judgment dated July 23, 2010. 7. The question, therefore, is whether the above remarks made against the petitioner in the judgment dated July 23, 2010 can be expunged? 8. We are of the view that the above remarks made against the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of being heard, have to be expunged. By making the above remarks, we never intended to make any entries based on the same in his confidential reports. It was intended only as a future guidance for the said judicial officer and it was for this purpose that this Court had specifically directed to send a copy of the judgment to the said officer but till now the same has not been sent. Further it is alleged in the petition that the adverse entries made in his confidential report, based on the remarks made against him in the judgment dated July 23, 2010, will affect his judicial career. Therefore, we expunge the remarks made against the petitioner in paragraphs 4, 7 and 8 of the judgment dated July 23, 2010, which are extracted above. 9. Further the adverse entries, if any, made against him in his confidential report based on the above observations made by us in the judgment dated July 23, 2010 have also to be cancelled. In the result, the petition is allowed as above.