John Varghese vs K.S.R.T.C

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—The petitioner's father was a servant of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. On his death family pension was ordered to be paid to the widow. Later, she went abroad and returned. K.S.R.T.C. failed to release the arrears. She, therefore, filed a Writ Petition. While that was pending, she died in November, 2008. When that matter came up later, it was submitted by the learned Counsel whom she had engaged that her legal heirs are not interested in coming on record to prosecute that Writ Petition. Recording that submission, W.P.(C).30665/08 was dismissed as abated on 2.4.2009 as per Ext.P2 judgment. Now, the petitioner says that after that, the parties obtained heirship certificate etc. and has moved the competent authority for release of the amount and that the said representation should be considered. This is an era where the underprivileged and others, if grievances subsisting, do not find space or time under the judicial system to seek redressal of their grievances. If Writ Petitions are filed at the drop of a hat, including on grounds on which reliefs could have been easily obtained elsewhere or even earlier, this clogging agony of the judicial system can never be rectified in favour of the citizens. One fails to understand why the legal heirs of Thresiamma, who were not interested to come on record in her Writ Petition, now seek relief by filing a separate Writ Petition, as is done now. May be that the learned Counsel who had been appearing in that Writ Petition could be criticised of having made a submission without proper authority since his engagement as per the vakalathnama was co-terminus with the death of Thresiamma. Be that as it may, the closure of a matter as abated does not deprive the legal representatives even to apply for setting aside abatement and to re-open that Writ Petition.

2.Multiplicity of litigations and necessity to stop the peril of repeated Writ Petitions on the same cause of action is a matter of abundant public interest and this is quite clear in different provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including Sections 10, 11, Order 22 Rule 9 etc. The different decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court stand to advise that the procedure prescribed under the C.P.C. is founded on the fundamental principles of natural justice and unless it is necessary to exclude the application of C.P.C. on grounds of grave inconvenience etc., it would always be advisable to follow the broad principles of the Code even in writ matters. Looking at Order 22 Rule 9, which stands for more than a century and half now, when a suit abates or is dismissed for non impleadment, no fresh suit shall be brought on the same cause of action. This principle applies and should apply in public interest even to writ jurisdiction. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner not having invoked the jurisdiction to set aside the abatement in the earlier matter, I do not find that this Writ Petition should be entertained on a cause of action which is one germinating out of late Thresiamma's rights. The Writ Petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed, preserving the right to set aside abatement and impleadment in the earlier matter.