Kerala High Court
Administrative and Public LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

When the Tribunal decides an application on the merits in the applicant’s absence, the remedy is review, not Article 227 intervention.

SURESH BABU.R vs STATE OF KERALA

Kerala High CourtJUDGMENT: October 13, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
When the Tribunal decides an application on the merits in the applicant’s absence, the remedy is review, not Article 227 intervention.. SURESH BABU.R vs STATE OF KERALA. Kerala High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner had filed O.A. No. 516 of 2022 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal seeking interest on delayed payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity and commutation amounts.

Source reference: para. 1; para. 3

The Tribunal dismissed the application on merits on 29 May 2025, although neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present when it was heard.

Source reference: para. 1; para. 3

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that the Tribunal should not have decided the matter on merits in his absence.

Source reference: para. 4; para. 5
02

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner could challenge under Article 227 an order by which the Tribunal decided his application on merits in his absence, or whether the appropriate remedy was review before the Tribunal.

Source reference: para. 5; para. 8

2. Whether the Tribunal may entertain a review application filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed by Rule 21 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010, if sufficient cause is shown.

Source reference: para. 9
03

Law Applied

Rule 15(1) of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010 gives the Tribunal discretion, when an applicant is absent at the hearing, either to dismiss the application for default or to hear and decide it on merits. Under the proviso to Rule 15(2), a matter decided on merits cannot be reopened except by way of review.

Source reference: para. 6

Rule 21 prescribes a 30-day period for filing a review application. The Court also relied on Haris K.M. and others v. Jahfar K. and others, 2020 (5) KHC 123, holding that the Tribunal may entertain a review beyond that period if proper cause is shown.

Source reference: para. 9
04

Reasoning

The Tribunal had exercised its discretion under Rule 15(1) to decide the application on merits rather than dismiss it for default.

Source reference: para. 6

In those circumstances, the Rules made review—not an Article 227 challenge—the route for seeking to reopen the decision.

Source reference: para. 6; para. 8

The Court therefore did not consider the underlying claim for interest and left the petitioner free to seek review, including out of time if proper cause could be shown.

Source reference: para. 6; para. 9
05

Holding

The Court dismissed the original petition as not maintainable, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to seek review of the Tribunal’s order under the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010.
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Administrative Tribunals Act, 19851

Kerala High Court

Original Court PDF

SURESH BABU.RvsSTATE OF KERALA

Kerala High Court · October 13, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment