Tribunals cannot close cases with cryptic orders, they must give reasons: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently set aside an order passed by a tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions on finding that it was cryptically worded and did not record any reasons for its conclusions [Renjini KK v Mannancherry Grama Panchayat & ors].

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan emphasised that tribunals must pass speaking orders recording reasons for its conclusions. He observed that tribunals cannot simply narrate facts and then close the matter with a few lines without discussing the rival arguments and the reasons for its decision.

The Court observed that the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999, too required tribunals to record its decision on the petition after considering the pleadings and connected records.

The Court added that a speaking order is essential to ensure fairness, transparency, and meaningful judicial review.

"An 'order recording its decision' mentioned in Rule 20 of the Tribunal Rules 1999 itself shows that there should be a speaking order. The decision-making which leads to the order should be recorded by the Tribunal. The tribunal cannot dispose of a case simply by narrating the facts and, thereafter, in two lines, concluding the order. As I stated earlier, the tribunal should pass a speaking order recording its decision on the petition," the Court held.

The Court was dealing with a writ petition was filed by Renjini KK. The petitioner had challenged an order of the Mannancherry Grama Panchayat refusing to assign a building number and occupancy certificate to her residential building in Alappuzha. She also challenged a tribunal's order rejecting her appeal in the matter.

The petitioner said that she had constructed a single-storied residential building measuring around 560 square feet in 2019. At the time, such constructions did not require a building permit under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011.

She stated that despite the building being intended solely for residential, use, the Panchayat insisted on treating it as a commercial structure and later rejected her application for regularisation and an occupancy certificate.

The petitioner challenged the Panchayat's decision before a tribunal. However, it dismissed her appeal through a short order stating that the Panchayat was justified in refusing regularisation of the unauthorised building.

The Court examined the tribunal's order and found that it merely narrated facts before stating that the panchayat had given a speaking order which was justified and did not warrant interference.

The Court found that in the tribunal's four-paragraph order, it did not discuss the issues raised by the petitioner or any reasons for rejecting them.

"I am of the considered opinion that the tribunals cannot pass such cryptic orders. Ext.P9 is not a speaking order," it held.

Referring to Rule 20 of the 1999 Tribunal Rules, the Court noted that the tribunal was required to record its decision on petitions. This necessarily meant that the tribunal must disclose the reasoning process leading to its conclusions.

Holding that the tribunal order in the present case was not a speaking order, the Court set aside both the tribunal's order and the Panchayat's notice directing the demolition of the petitioner's building.

The matter was remanded back to the tribunal for fresh consideration.

Advocates P Sathisan, Shibu BS, Biju P Paul, Alvin Jewel SS, Vidya TU, Antija James and Leena Varghese appeared for the petitioner.

Advocate VK Balachandran appeared for the Mannancherry Grama Panchayat

Government pleader KJ Shenoy appeared for the State authorities.  

[Read Judgment]