MARIAMMA MATHAI Vs. MATHULLA POTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the respondent to an application under S.31 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, for short, the Act, has prayed that the order Ext. P1 passed by the Land Tribunal setting aside an earlier order dated 20-10-1971 fixing fair rent at the instance of the applicant be set aside by the issue of a writ of certiorari. In addition, there is a prayer for the issue of a writ of prohibition preventing the 2nd respondent, the Land Tribunal from continuing with the proceedings in pursuance of the order Ext. P1. These are the two main prayers in the petition and these have been opposed by counsel for the 1st respondent who is the respondent in the application under S.31 of the Act. He contended that the order Ext. P1 was passed as early as 22-1-1972 and this writ application having been filed only on the 29th of August, 1973 is belated and ought to be dismissed on this sole ground. He further contended that in any view of the matter, no orders are called for by this Court even if the order Ext. P1 was without jurisdiction in view of the fact that the question of fair rent would directly arise for determination in the application made by the petitioner under S.72B of the Act for purchase of the landlord's rights. This application is admittedly pending and this application has been posted along with the application for fixation of fair rent and the two have to be disposed of together. Any order passed by this Court quashing Ext. P1 or issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the 2nd respondent, the Land Tribunal, from dealing with the application under S.31 of the Act will have no effect since the question of fair rent will again arise for consideration in the proceedings under S.72B of the Act. It is also contended that this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution because all that had been done was to have a fair enquiry for the determination of the correct fair rent. The order dated 20-10-1971, it was pointed out, was passed without notice to the Ist respondent and the Tribunal will always have jurisdiction to set aside such an order as it arises out of a mistake committed by the Tribunal. In any event, interests of justice do not require any interference by this Court. I shall deal with these contentions.

(2.) This Court has consistently taken the view that applications filed beyond the conventional period of 90 days should normally be dismissed unless there are sufficient reasons to excuse the delay. The delay in this case has been considerable and the contention raised by the 1st respondent that the publication of the decision of Justice Nambiyar in O. P. No. 5640 of 1972 in the Kerala Law Times, Part 23 on July 16, 1973 was the reason for this rethinking on the part of the petitioner is not without force. The prayer for setting aside the order Ext. P1 cannot therefore be granted. This leads me to the next question whether a writ of prohibition can and ought to be issued. I shall deal with the first aspect of this question.

(3.) If pursuant to the action of the Tribunal something remained to be done, the Tribunal does not become functus officio after the action and if that something directly arose from an order which could not stand, this Court, I conceive, can prohibit the Tribunal by a writ of prohibition from proceeding with or taking further steps pursuant to the wrong order or the order without jurisdiction. R. S. Wright, J. in Re London Scottish Permanent Building Society reported in (1893), 63 L. J. Q. B. 112 observed: