Tribunals Can't Dispose Appeals Through 'Cryptic Orders', Must Record Reasons: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that quasi-judicial tribunals cannot dispose of appeals through cryptic conclusions and are legally bound to issue reasoned, speaking orders that disclose the basis of their decisions.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan delivered the judgement while setting aside an order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions that had upheld a Panchayat's refusal to regularise a building and assign it a number.
The petitioner had constructed a 560 sq. ft. structure in Alappuzha district, claiming that under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, no building permit was required for the residential construction. She later sought assignment of a building number and occupancy certificate.
The Panchayat rejected the request on the ground that the structure was unauthorised and did not satisfy the required distance norms from National Highway 66 after a portion of the land was acquired for highway development. The Tribunal affirmed the Panchayat's decision in a brief order.
The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court and argued before the High Court that the Tribunal had failed to consider several substantive issues, including whether the building was residential in nature, whether the construction pre-dated the 2019 Rules, and the effect of the National Highways acquisition proceedings.
The High Court did not adjudicate the merits of the building dispute itself. Instead, it focused on the legality of the Tribunal's decision-making process.
The Court examined Rule 20 of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999, which mandates that the Tribunal must issue an order recording its decision on the petition.
The Court interpreted this requirement as necessarily implying a speaking order containing reasons.
“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.” the Court said.
The Court noted that a Division Bench in Ambili S. v. Vinod Kumar Pilla [2023 KHC 9005], has observed the manner in which an order should be passed by administrative or quasi-judicial authorities.
The Court held that the requirement to give reasons applies equally to administrative and quasi-judicial authorities, even where detailed judicial-style reasoning may not be necessary.
“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.” the court said.
The Court thus held that the Tribunal's order failed to meet the standards required under law, and set aside both the appellate order and the consequential demolition notice issued by the Panchayat.
The Court thus directed the Tribunal for fresh consideration after hearing all affected parties. The Court also permitted liberal amendment of pleadings if sought by the parties.
Case Title: Renjini K.K v Mannancherry Grama Panchayat and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 280
Case No: WP(C) 39428/ 2025
Counsel for Petitioner: P. Sathish, Shibu B.S, Alvin Jewel S.S, Vidhya T.U, Antija James, Leena Varghese
Counsel for Respondents: V.K. Balachandran