The Kerala High Court has laid down timelines within which statutory appellate bodies are to hear cases and deliver verdicts. .Justice PV Kunhikrishnan ordered that such bodies have to pronounce their verdicts within a month after the conclusion of hearing. In an order passed on July 2, the High Court noted that even constitutional courts have to deliver verdicts within time limit.Hence, he deemed it fit to set a time limit for passing final orders after hearing is completed by the statutory authorities until the government formulates specific guidelines in that regard.The following are the guidelines to be followed by all statutory authorities while considering appeals, revisions and other statutory applications/petitions:After hearing is concluded, the statutory authorities should pass final orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 30 days.If there is over a month's delay in passing final orders after concluding the hearing, the order should reflect the reason for the delay. The reason can be considered by the higher authorities to find out whether there is any prejudice to the parties because of the delay. If no proper reason is mentioned and there is prejudice to the parties because of the delay, that itself would be a reason to set aside that order.If no orders are passed within three months after concluding the hearing, the appellate authority, revisional authority and other statutory authorities should rehear the parties for passing final orders. Otherwise, the order passed by such authority can be set aside for that reason itself unless there are compelling reasons to sustain the same.If orders are passed after six months from the date of concluding the hearing by the appellate authority, revisional authority and other statutory authorities, those orders are to be set aside for that reason alone unless there are compelling reasons to sustain such orders..The Court also directed the Chief Secretary of the State to issue necessary orders to implement the same and to ensure that the public is made aware of the guidelines..The Court issued these guidelines while considering a petition moved by the owner of a piece of land challenging a finding that he was engaged in illegal mining in his property. The Department of Mining and Geology issued an order again him and sent him a notice demanding ₹2,45,788 from him as royalty and fine. He subsequently moved an appeal as per the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 before the Appellate Authority of the Industrial Department department.His appeal was dismissed prompting him to approach the High Court with the present petition. .The Court at the outset noted that the appeal was heard by the appellate authority on November 21, 2017 but the order was passed after over six months on June 7, 2018. The Court opined that such delays cannot be countenanced and held that orders passed over 6 months after the hearing can be set aside for that reason alone. The Court also noted that the order passed by the Department of Mining and Geology did not contain all the information required. Therefore, it allowed the petition and directed the Geologist of the Department of Mining and Geology to consider the petitioner's case afresh. .The petitioner was represented by advocates Jomy George and Deepak Mohan. Government Pleader BS Syamantak appeared for the State. .[Read Judgment]
The Kerala High Court has laid down timelines within which statutory appellate bodies are to hear cases and deliver verdicts. .Justice PV Kunhikrishnan ordered that such bodies have to pronounce their verdicts within a month after the conclusion of hearing. In an order passed on July 2, the High Court noted that even constitutional courts have to deliver verdicts within time limit.Hence, he deemed it fit to set a time limit for passing final orders after hearing is completed by the statutory authorities until the government formulates specific guidelines in that regard.The following are the guidelines to be followed by all statutory authorities while considering appeals, revisions and other statutory applications/petitions:After hearing is concluded, the statutory authorities should pass final orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 30 days.If there is over a month's delay in passing final orders after concluding the hearing, the order should reflect the reason for the delay. The reason can be considered by the higher authorities to find out whether there is any prejudice to the parties because of the delay. If no proper reason is mentioned and there is prejudice to the parties because of the delay, that itself would be a reason to set aside that order.If no orders are passed within three months after concluding the hearing, the appellate authority, revisional authority and other statutory authorities should rehear the parties for passing final orders. Otherwise, the order passed by such authority can be set aside for that reason itself unless there are compelling reasons to sustain the same.If orders are passed after six months from the date of concluding the hearing by the appellate authority, revisional authority and other statutory authorities, those orders are to be set aside for that reason alone unless there are compelling reasons to sustain such orders..The Court also directed the Chief Secretary of the State to issue necessary orders to implement the same and to ensure that the public is made aware of the guidelines..The Court issued these guidelines while considering a petition moved by the owner of a piece of land challenging a finding that he was engaged in illegal mining in his property. The Department of Mining and Geology issued an order again him and sent him a notice demanding ₹2,45,788 from him as royalty and fine. He subsequently moved an appeal as per the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 before the Appellate Authority of the Industrial Department department.His appeal was dismissed prompting him to approach the High Court with the present petition. .The Court at the outset noted that the appeal was heard by the appellate authority on November 21, 2017 but the order was passed after over six months on June 7, 2018. The Court opined that such delays cannot be countenanced and held that orders passed over 6 months after the hearing can be set aside for that reason alone. The Court also noted that the order passed by the Department of Mining and Geology did not contain all the information required. Therefore, it allowed the petition and directed the Geologist of the Department of Mining and Geology to consider the petitioner's case afresh. .The petitioner was represented by advocates Jomy George and Deepak Mohan. Government Pleader BS Syamantak appeared for the State. .[Read Judgment]
