“Not The Manner In Which Tribunal Is To Decide An Appeal”: Kerala High Court Sets Aside LSG Tribunal’s Cryptic, Non-Speaking Order
The Bench observed that quasi-judicial authorities must record clear reasons after considering the pleadings and contentions of the parties.
Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that quasi-judicial tribunals cannot dispose of appeals through cryptic conclusions devoid of reasoning, holding that every adjudicatory authority must record clear reasons reflecting application of mind. The Court categorically remarked that Tribunals cannot pass such cryptic, non-speaking orders, and it was not the manner in which Tribunal is to decide an appeal.
While setting aside an order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions which had upheld the rejection of a building numbering application filed by a resident of Alappuzha, the Bench held that such an approach violated Rule 20 of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999, which requires the Tribunal to issue an order “recording its decision” after considering the pleadings and records. It said that this necessarily means a reasoned or “speaking” order.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed, “I am of the considered opinion that the tribunals cannot pass such cryptic orders. Ext.P9 is not a speaking order…This is not the manner in which the Tribunal is to decide an appeal. The Tribunal should pass a speaking order after considering the parties' pleadings. The petitioner raises several legal and factual contentions in this writ petition. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P9 is to be set aside and it is to be reconsidered by the Tribunal…”.
Advocate P. Sathisan appeared for the petitioner and Suvin R. Menon, Senior Panel Counsel appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, Renjini K.K., had constructed a 560 sq. ft. residential building in 2019 on her property in Komalapuram Village, Alappuzha. According to her, the structure fell within the exemption under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, which did not require a building permit for such small residential constructions in a Category-2 Village Panchayat.
It was contended that despite the building being residential in nature, Panchayat authorities insisted on treating it as a commercial structure and demanded regularisation.
The dispute became more complicated after part of her land was acquired for National Highway development. The Panchayat ultimately rejected her request for a building number and occupancy certificate, citing violation of setback requirements from National Highway 66. Her appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions was also dismissed.
Before the High Court, the petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s order, arguing that it failed to consider her detailed legal and factual contentions. Agreeing with the petitioner, the Court observed that the Tribunal had merely narrated facts and concluded, in a few lines, that the Panchayat was justified in refusing regularisation.
“The Tribunal is constituted for a purpose. The Tribunal Rules, 1999, provide detailed procedures for the consideration of a petition. The Tribunal Rules, 1999, also specify how a petition is to be submitted before the Tribunal, the documents to be accompanied with the petition, the powers of the Tribunal, and the hearing of the parties' pleadings. When such a detailed procedure is provided in the Tribunal Rules, 1999, it is the duty of the Tribunal to pass a speaking order. On a perusal of paragraph 4 of Ext.P9, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a speaking order…”, it observed.
Relying on the Division Bench decision in Ambili S v. Vinod Kumar Pilla and the Supreme Court ruling in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, the Court reiterated that recording reasons is an essential component of natural justice and prevents arbitrariness in administrative and quasi-judicial decision-making.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order as well as the consequential demolition notice issued by the Panchayat, and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to all affected parties.
Cause Title: Renjini K.K. v. Mannancherry Grama Panchayat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:33874)
Appearances:
Petitioner: P. Sathisan, Shibu B.S, Biju P. Paul, Alvin Jewel S.S., Vidhya T.U., Antija James, Leena Varghese, Advocates.
Respondents: V.K. Balachandran, SC, Suvin R. Menon, Senior Panel Counsel, K.J.Shenoy, GP, Bidan Chandran, SC, Advocates.