Order Passed By Bench In Matter Outside Its Roster Would Be Without Jurisdiction And A Nullity | Kerala High Court Directs Single Judge To Determine Civil Or Criminal Nature Of Writ Petition
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu has disposed of a writ appeal challenging an interim order issued by a Single Judge. The Court directed that before addressing the substantive issues, the Single Judge must first determine whether the pending writ petition is to be classified as a civil or criminal writ petition. It held that if the Single Judge concludes the petition falls outside the assigned Roster, the prior interim order will be treated as void and without jurisdiction. The appeal was accordingly disposed of with liberty to the appellants to revive it depending on the Single Judge’s finding.
The appellants, engaged in hotel construction activities, filed the writ appeal challenging the rejection of their prayer for interim relief by the Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.44196 of 2024. The writ petition was filed seeking to quash the freezing of their bank accounts under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) by the Enforcement Directorate.
During a search operation, statements were recorded under Section 17 of PMLA and the Enforcement Directorate concluded that the hotel property appeared to have been built using proceeds of crime sourced from unsecured loans. On this basis, the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Ernakulam, exercising powers under Section 17(1A) of the Act, issued directions to banks, identified as respondents 5 to 8, to freeze the appellants’ accounts to the extent of the balances mentioned.
Aggrieved by the freezing order, the appellants approached the High Court through a writ petition. They sought not only quashing of the freezing order but also a writ of mandamus restraining the Enforcement Directorate and the Adjudicating Authority from continuing proceedings under PMLA against them. Additionally, they prayed for interim relief to lift the freeze imposed on their bank accounts.
The learned Single Judge rejected the appellants’ prayer for interim relief by order dated 24 February 2025. Challenging this order, the appellants filed the present writ appeal contending that their rights were seriously affected and the freezing of the accounts had paralyzed their operations.
During the hearing before the Division Bench, the respondents including the Union of India, the Enforcement Directorate, and the banks contested the maintainability of the appeal and also raised the issue regarding whether the writ petition was appropriately classified as a civil writ petition.
The issue of classification arose because the original writ petition had been registered and heard as a W.P.(C), that is, a civil writ petition. According to the Registry, civil and criminal writ petitions are assigned to different judges as per the Roster and the question whether the writ petition was correctly categorized became significant in view of the roster management and jurisdictional norms followed by the High Court.
Arguments were advanced citing precedents where classification of writ petitions had been held material. The parties agreed that this jurisdictional issue needed to be addressed first.
The Court observed that “There is a distinction between a Civil Writ Petition and a Criminal Writ Petition.” Referring to its earlier decision in N. Prakash v. Manoj Kumar, it recorded that the nature of proceedings arising out of Article 226 of the Constitution must be determined based on whether the proceeding, if carried to conclusion, could lead to criminal sanctions such as imprisonment or forfeiture.
Citing the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Nagpur Cable Operators’ Association, the Division Bench recorded, “If the writ petition/application under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution arises out of or relates to a proceeding in which, if carried to its conclusion, it may result in sentence of death or imprisonment, fine or forfeiture of property, then such writ petition/application should be treated as a criminal writ petition.”
The Court further recorded that criminal writ petitions would also include matters arising out of investigation, inquiry, or trial of offences under special or general statutes. “When a statute commands or prohibits an act, disobedience of such statute is prima facie criminal unless criminal proceedings are excluded by such statute,” it stated.
Noting the Registry’s objection, the Division Bench recorded, “As per the present Roster, Civil Writ Petitions and Criminal Writ Petitions are assigned to different Single Judges. Also, appeals arising from orders passed in Civil Writ Petitions and Criminal Writ Petitions are placed before different Benches.”
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited v. Grse Limited Workmens Union and Others, the Court stated the binding nature of roster management. It recorded, “The dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is clear that any order passed in a matter outside the Roster or not specifically assigned would be without jurisdiction and nullity.”
Further, it stated that “An adjudication beyond allocation is void and such adjudication has to be considered a nullity.”
Therefore, the Court recorded that whether the writ petition was a civil or criminal writ petition had to be decided in the first instance by the learned Single Judge who heard the matter.
The Court disposed of the writ appeal with specific directions. It recorded that the appeal was being disposed of to enable the learned Single Judge to first determine whether W.P.(C) No.44196 of 2024 is to be categorized as a civil or criminal writ petition.
It directed that if the learned Single Judge concludes that the writ petition is a criminal writ petition and does not fall within the assigned Roster, then in accordance with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited, the order dated 24 February 2025 shall be treated as a nullity and the writ petition will have to be placed before the appropriate Bench as per the Roster.
The Court further recorded that if the learned Single Judge is of the opinion that the writ petition is a civil writ petition and within the assigned Roster, and the impugned order is thus within jurisdiction, liberty is granted to the appellants to restore the appeal for consideration by the Division Bench. With these directions, no further orders were passed and the appeal stood disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Sri. R. Jaikrishna, Sri. Akhil Shaji, Sri. Anish P., Sri. C.S. Arun Shankar, and Smt. Narayani Harikrishnan, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Sri. C.K. Karunakaran, Advocate, Smt. Akshara Raju, Advocate, Sri. Krishna T.C., Advocate.
Case Title: Trivandrum Apollo Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:26139
Case Number: WA No. 556 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu
[Read/Download order]
