., A c RAMA VERMA BHARATHAN THAMPURAN v. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. July 30, 1979 [\!. R. KmsHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.J Valiamma Thampuram Kovilakam Estate and the Palace (Partition) and the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Amendment Act, 1978 (Act 15 of 1978), constitutional validity of.
The Maharaja of Cochin, reigned and ruled over a pretty State, Cochin,. \Vhich is now an integral part of the Keralai State. The Travancore-Cochin State came into being on July 1, 1949.
Two ·days before this constitutional merger, the Mabaraja of Cochin issued a ProclamatiOA to provide for. the impartibility, administration and preservation of the Royal Estate and
the Palace Fund through a Five-man Board of' Trustees. A small Process of family legislation on the Cochin Palace followed the· political transformation of the State. The first was the Valiamma Thampuram Kovilakam Estate 3.nd the Palace Fund (Partition) Act, 1961 (Act 16 of 1961 ), the primary purpose of which was to undo the impartibility of the Royal Estate, as declared by the Proclamation of 1949. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act prescribed the shares of the members, the mode of division and the
machinery for partition under these provisions, on a majority of the major members of the royal falll.l1y expressing their wish to be divided, the Maharaja would consider \Vhether
it was. in the interest of the family to partition the estate among the members and, if he did, direct the Board of Trustees to proceed with the partition under his supervision and control,
Each member including en ventra sa nz€re, was eli&ible for a single sha.re on an equal basis.. The Board nominated under the earlier Proclan1ation was continued but its responsibilities were
broadened. The privileges of the Maharaja were preserved as his personal rights but vis-a-vis family assets feudal "primogeniture" fell to modem egalite, within limits. As a result of the 26th Constitution Amendment Act of 1971 which extinguished all royal privileges, privy purses and other dignities of the erstwhile rulers of the Indian States, the Cochin Maharaja stepped down to the level of the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family. The Marummakkatta~ yam system which ensured impartibility and management by the senior most
men1ber bad lost its functional value and virtually vanished from the Kera.la coast with the passing of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition). Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1976). Despite this revolutionary change, the Cochin royal family maintained its former status as Marummakkattayam undivided
coparcenary since it was governed by special legislation which remained un~ repealed. Therefore, the Kerala Legislation enacted the Valiamma Thampuram Kovilakam Estate and the Palace Fund (Partition) and the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Amendment Act, 1978 (Act 15 of 1978). Before the High Court and in the special leave petition, the vires of the Amending Act omitting sections 4 and 5 from the Principal Act 16/1961 was challenged as offending Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Dismissing the sp'ecial leave petition, the Court, ';: i R. v. B. THAMPURAN v. KERALA (Krishna Iyer, !.) HELD : The public policy behind Section 7 of the Valiamma Tham- puram Kovilakam Estate and the Palace Fund (Partition) Act, 1961, exclud- ini civil court jurisdiction is not merely the special situation of the former
royal family but the virtual impossibility within a life-time of division by meteS aod bounds and al1'1tment of aha.r'es to the 800 odd members, most of whom are real royalties in rags, homeless and hungry, seeking to survive by the small pieces from the large cake if ever it will be sliced and distributed. [141A-BJ
Civil litigatio.Q for partition is the surest punishment to the tattered ~princelings' by pauperising them through the justice process and giving them stones instead of bread in the end, if the end would arrive at all. The com- pulsive pragmatics of distributive justice elicited legislative compassion for this uniquely numerous crowd of pauperised patricians by exclusion of civil courts jurisdiction. Th!! pathology of protracted, exotic processual legalistics needs com- prehensive renovation if the Justice System is to survive but the legislature sal- vaged the largest royal family with the littlest individual resources without \Vaiting for the remote undertaking to overhaul Processual Justice to the People. Socio-
logy is the mother of law, lest ll\w in the books should be bastardised by the law of. life. [14!D·FJ 2. Our constitutional order is sensibly and sensitively allergic to arbitrary power and the Supreme CourtJ will unhesitatingly strike down any provision which can be i!l.nathematis:ed as creating uncanalised and Neronised power.
Section 4_ of the Principal Act of 1961 provided for an equal opportunity for every mcn1ber including those en ventre sa mere. This provision was deleted becaus'e its purpose WaB otherwise served by the substituted Section 3 af 1\ct 16 of 196_1 by including a direction to the Board "to effect partition of tI:.e Estate _and the Palace Fund among all the' members entitled to a share" …. under Section 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System
(Abolition} Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1976)." The effect of the importation of Section 4 of the Ab0lition 'Act is to ensure partition per capita aimong all the members as in the case of a Joint Hindu Family othef'. than 3-n
undivided n1itakshara Hindu family. What was otiose, namely, Section 4 of Act 16 of 1961, was cut out. This was merely a drafting operation not making any change in the substanHve -law bearing upon the shares of the members.
The cont'ention tlr1t by this deletion the members of the Kovilagam had been made over as hostages to 'the caprice of the Board of Trustees is a frightful error or disingenu- ous ·sdare:· [!4!-F·G, 143H, 144A-B]
3. Section 5 of the 1961 Act arrogated to the Maharaja of Cochin the power to exclude any properties from the category of partible estate. If most members were to·.b.e .indigent, the infliction upon· such members by the Maharaja's act of excliision of as many properties as he. thought should not be divided would be. unjust .. : Since every member was. entitled tO an equal share with the Maharaja himself all the properties should he available far partition and this result, which is eminently .just, is achieved by the omission of Section 5 ftom Act 16 of 1961. Therefore; the provision in Aci 15 of 1978 omitting Section 5 from the principal ACt'is a; virtile to be commended, .not a vice to-be· condetnned. It is. eminently reasonable and to contend against it is obviously unreasonable. [143D-FJ ·4'.· ."ipo t°1asphcme the Board as· an in1periuni'-i11 ';fnpe6o, a Jaw unto it.self and therefore, arbitrary is an egregious error. The Board v.ras not a ile~;- Creation c
c SVl'REME COVRT REPORTS [1980] l S.C.R. but ·an old concoction brought into being by the Ruler thirty years ago. cootinued by the Kerala Legislature in Act 16 of 1961 and recognised by the fatest a.Qlend- ment Act. Tire Board is a time honoured entity wherein the heads of .the four branches are rnembers and is entrusted ·with the work of division of 3Slif;lis. The Board, being an old institution in plenary management since 1949 and wisely.co1n- posed of senior-most members of the four branches, is sentimentally and .func- tionally the best instrument to divide and distribute. Indeed Act 16 of "196.l •had also entrusted the task of partition to the same Board and no member had during nearly two decades challenged the wisdom of the provision. [144B-D]
Section 3 of the Act 15 of 1978 does not dispense with canons .of fair play of natural justice and of quasi-judicial values. A non-curial ,ioatrumen· tality and procedure for partitioning cannot be condemned as discriminatory. The alternative created by rt.he statute is quite reasonable and is a better ins- trument having regard to the totality of factors.
Law is not' a cocoon and keeps its eyes wide awake to the realities of life. The legislation in .question has takei.1 note of all facts namely; (a) absence of any complaint 'tgdin!t their management ever since the Boord's creation; (b)
sanctification Qf the Board by the principal Act 16 of 1961 by conferring powers of ,partitioning the "Kovilagam" properties on this very Board; and does nothing .more What \Vas good and valid in 1961 could not become vicious and invalid iu 1978. [145 B-D, E]
Quasi-judicial responsibilities are implied by the· statute in the ·Board's fuaction and if the Board breaches these norms and canons, the constitut~ona! remedy under Article 226 comes into play. After all, the Board is a :statutory body and not an executive creature. It has been saddled with effecting the rights of parties and is bound to act quasi-judicially. Its deviances are not unrcviewablc in \Vriit jurisdiction. Sufficient guidelines are built in Seetion 3 and therefore Section 3(2) is not unbridled and unconstitutional. [1'45F"-G, -t46E]
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1976] Suppl. S.C.R. 489; M •. S. Gill and Anr. v. Union of India, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621, Organo Che111ical !Industries and Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., [1980] 1 S.C.R. p. 61 referred ·lo. 5. 1\bsence of appeals does not jettison justice, though often tim~. 'ft.ppeals are the bane of the justice system, especially ·because the rich caut·defettt the poor and the weak can be baulked of their rights indefinitely th.at ,w~y. The Boa.rd is a s-tatutory body and when it violates th'e prescriptions of the \"law or otherwise actc; arbitrarily or nu1lafide, Art. 226 of the Constitution is a correc- tive.
[146 F-G] 6. Act 15 of 1978 has ~one of the characteristi'CS of class Jegi.ihitioo <lnd is an th~ other hand, an equalising measure with a pragmatic :touth,, IT"be Cochin Kovilagan1 vis-a-vis the1Kerala State is sui generis. lt'haslbem: 11.e&is-.
latively dealt with as a special. class 'throughout the history of 1Ken1Ja end before.. Partitioning of the royal family .estates on principles similar fto i'those applicable to .all other Kemla IHindu ·Families with the only diff«elHll>ilhat a Board instead of a Civil ·~Coutt allots shares by ·metes and bound,s, – !fully
justifiable by the special dreumstances. [1'47 A·Bl CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition ~vii) No. 5863 of 1979. j • ,,.. R. v. B. THAMPURAN v. KERALA (Krishna Tyer, J.)
From the Judgment and Order dated 15-12-1978 of the Kcrala High Court in Origi·nal Petition No. 679 /78-Il. N. Sudhakaran for the Petitioner. A. S. Nambiar for the Respondents. The, Order of the Court was delivered by
,1 KRISHNA !YER, J. All the parties are represented by counsel and ._., t • we have heard them in extenso. We therefore proceed to pass a speaking order. The. princely family of Cochin with a proletarian plurality of
members has been the cynosure of spocial legislations, the last of which is Act 15 of 1978, the target of attack in this special leave petition. Articles 14 ahd 19 of the Constitution have been th•e ammu- nition used by the petitioner in the High Court and here to shoot down the 1egis1ation as ultra vires.
A brief sketch of the family law of the Cochin royalty may serve to appreciate the scheme of the latest legislation under challenge. The. Maharaja of Cochin, reigned and ruled over a pretty prirn;ely State, Cochin,
which is now an ihtegral part of the Kerala State. When the. curtain of history rose to find India free, the constellation of princedoms fused into Independent India's democratic geography . Cochin and Travancore finally fell in with this trend.
As a first step they were integrated into the_ Travancore-Cochin State which came into being on July 1, 1949. Two days before this constitutional merger,. the Maharaja of Cochin issued a Proclamation to provide for the impartibility, administratioµ and preservation of the Royal Estate a·nd> the Palace Fund through a Board of Trustees.
A small process of family legislation on the Cochin Palace followed the political trans- formation of the State. The Valiamma Thampuram Kovilakam Estate and the palace Fund (Partition) Act, 1961 (Act hi of 1961) was the fir!lt, the primary purpose of which was to undo the impartibility of the royal estate as declared by the Proclamation of 1949. The
shares of the members, the mode of division and the machinery for partition were statutorily prescribed by Sections 4 ahd 5 of the said Act,. The basics of those two sections were that on a majority of the major members of the royal family expressing their wish to be divi- ded;. the Maharaja would consider whether it was in the interest of the family to partition the estate among the members and, if he did, cjirect the Board of Trustees to proceed with the partition under his supervision and control.
Each member, including a child in the womb, was eligible for a sihgle share on an equal basis. The privi- c Sl•PREME COURT REPORTS lcges of the Maharaja were preserved as his personal right but vi,5-a-vis .,,..
family assets feudal 'Primogeniture' fell to modern egalite, wiihin limits. The next epochal legislation was the 26th Constitution Amendment Act of December 1971 which extinguishei.I.all royal privileg.;s, privy purses and cher dignities of the erstwhile rulers of the Indian States. With the denudation of his royal privileges the
Cochin Maharaja stepped down to the level of the karta of a joint Hindu family. The royalty which was once a reality became a mere memory and with the statutory injection of democratic rights into this blue-blooded family. p:ebian claims for equal shares began to be voiced, especially C · because the multifid of little royalties of the Maharaja's matriarchal family lived in lurid poverty, as counsel
distressingly described. Indeed, the marummakkattayam system which at one time en.sured impartibility and management by the senior-most member had lost its functional value and virtually vanished from the Kerala coast, thanks o: to the erosive process of legislative individualism.
The final blow to this system was delivered by the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1976) which fully wiped out the matriarchal pat~orn of holding and the Hindu undivided family system in the State of Kerala.
Despite this revolutionary change, the Cochin royal family maintained its former status as a marummakkattayam undivided coparcenary since it was governed by special legislation which remained unrepealed.
Tbis regal matriarchal survival levelled into the main-stream of proprietary life with equal, partible shares for young and old, like the rest of the community when the Kerala legislature enacted the Valiamma Thampnram Kovilakam Estate and the Palace Fund (Partition) and the Kerala Joint Hindu Family Sys- lcm (Abolition) Amendment Act, 1978 (Act 15 of 1978) (preceded by Ordinance No. 1 of· 1978).
A close-up of this statutory scheme is necessary since it is this legislation which is furiously fusilladed as unconstitutional by counsel for the petitioner. The legislative Proclamation of 1949, if we briefly
recapitulate, commended the Constitution by His Highness the Maharaja of a five-man Board of Trustees charged with the plenary task of 'admi'nistration, management and conservation' of the 'Estate' and 'Palace Fund'. Act 16 of 1961 brought about a degree of eco- nomic democratisation while preserving some of the
sP"cial legal habiliments of the· royal estate. The Board nominated under the earlier Proclamation was continued but its responsibilities were broadened to include partitioning of the Kovilakam assets if a majority cf major members-the voice of Palace democracy-asked for divi- • 1
t R. v. B. THAMPURAN v. KERALA (Krishna Iyer,!.) sion and the Maharaja deemed it desirable i'n the interests of the family. This was a half way house between the impartible old and
partible-at-will new. A short provision of great relevance to the issue of constitutionality is to be found in &~ction 7. The public policy behind this Section excluding civil court jurisdiction is not merely the speci'al situation of the former royal family but the virtual impossibility within a life-time of division by metes and bounds and allotment of shares to ti>~ 800 odd members, most of whom are little royalties in rags, homeless and hungry, seeking to survive by the small pieces from the large cake if ever it will be sliced and distributed. The exaspera- ting longevity
qf partition litigation, what with the present cantankerous orientation and procedural interminability, preliminary decree, appeals thereo'n, commission~, objectioll!\, revisions,
final decrees, and a ruinous crown of other interlocutory proceedings punc- tuating the suit, followed by inevitable appeals and special leave petitions and the like, baflles the humble and baulks their hope of getting a morsel in their short life span.
When this pheilomenon-a'n ludo-Anglican processual bequest-is compounded by the calamitous fact that there are around 800 sharers and a variety of considerable assets to be divided, civil litigation for partition is the surest punish- ment to the tattered 'princeli'ngs' by pauperising them through the justice process and giving them stones instead of bread in the end, if the end would arrive at all ! The compulsive pragmatics of distri- butive justice elicited legislative compassion for this uniquely numerous crowd of pauperised patricians by exclusion of civil court's jurisd1~ tion. The pathology of protracted, exotic processual legalistics needs
comprehensive renomtion if the Justice System is to survive but the legislature salvaged the largest royal family with the littlest individual resouro~s without waittng for the remote undertaking to overhaul ProcessuaJ Justice to the People.
Sociology is' the mother of law, lest law in the books should be bastardised by the law of life. A radical measure which swept off the matriarchal system and the Joint family form of estate for Hindus is the next statutory even which needs mention.
Kerala Act 30 of 1976 (The Kerala Joirrt Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975), abolished at one stroke the Hindu undivided family and converted them into tenancies-in-common with the rule of one member one share.
The Cochin 'Kovilagam' was not affected because neither Act 16 of 1961 nor the prior royal proclamation expressly repealed. But the individualist spirit of Act 30 of 1976 invaded the royal family legislatively as there is no basis for proprietary privilege, ev,"n as vestiges of past glory, in a democracy charged with social justice.
So, Act 15 of 1978 (The Valiamma HI c [1980] l ·S.C.R. Thampuram Kovilakam Estate and the Palace Fund (Partition) and the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System {Abolition) Amendment Act, 1978) came to be pas&ed whereby division of the Kovilakam assets was freed from the Maharaja's subjectivism and made a mandate of the statute, in tune with the common trend.
The modus operandi to work out partition was the Board and no specific pl'~scription regarding the shares of members is give'n. No appeal from the parti- tion effected by the Board is specified and Sections 4 and 5 of Act 16 of 1961 aP~ deleted retrospectively.
A quick glance at the provisions gives the impression that the legislature merely equated the right In partition of ti>~ junior members of the Kovilakam with that of the commonalty of marumakkattayam families save that instead of the Civil Court the division by met~ and bounds was to be carried out by the Board which was
already in management and was familiar with the features of the family and the assets. A closer look, rn the light of the constitutional challenge which was repelled by th~ High Court, leaves us cold, hot submissions to burn down the allegedly arbitrary and irresesonable legislation not- withstanding.
Let us dissect the anatomy of the Amending Act of 1978. Be it remembered that Act 16 of 1961 (the principal Act) is not and has never been attacked as ultra vires. If the principal Act was good
the search for the invalidatory vice must be confined to the cluster of new claus•es. The principal violation pressed before 11s by Sb.ri Govindan Nair for the petitioner, who is a senior member of the family, is of Art. 14 and the customary contention, more easily waged than established, is that arbi_trary, ungnided, naked and tyrannical power is conferred on the Board and therefore the whole Act is bad because th~ central piece of the statutory scheme is this machinery.
True, our consti- tutional order is sensibly and sensitively allergic to arbitrary power and we have no hesitation in striking down any provision which can be anathematised as creating uncanalised and Neronised Power. The very creation of the Board was challenged as violative of Art. 14 6ihce the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is the common forum with other judicial remedies, appellate and revisional, available for
the aggrieved party. Whilei the Board is given plenary power to divide and distribute with validity being conferred on such partition the grievance is that there are no appeals and revisions ·and the arbitra- ment of the Board e»en if it is arbitrary becomes final.
This is casti- gated as a caprice of the legislature. More than all, the very singling t • R. v. B. THAMPURAN v. KERALA (Krishna Iyer, J.) ouf of the ruler's family, populous though it be, is anathematised as· discriminatory. Incidentally, the powers of the Board are charged as· uftreasonable since there is no provision to give a hearing to the affected parties in the process of adjudication and the whole process rnay "\11(!11 be the deliberations of a secret campaign.
These violent vices imputed to the statute will certainly i•nvalidate the Act 15 of 1978, if there were some substance therein. Even an imaginative ~xercise, jf inforn1ed by rca1isn1, discovers no such infirmity. Let us clear the confusion caused by the omission of Sections 4 a:nd 5 of the principal Act.
Shri Govindan Nair for the petitioners relied on this omission to contend that the wholesome provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Principal Act of 1961 have been waywardly withdrawn leaving it to the Board to award such shares as they fancied to the various members.
This submission proceeds on a simple mis- conception. Section 4 provides for an equal share for •every member including a child in the womb and Section 5 arrogates to the Maharaja of Cochin the power to exclude any properties from the category of partib1e estate.
No democrat will shed a tear if Section 5 were dele- ted. The members, as Shri Govindan Nair himself urged, were mostly indigent. IE that were so, the infliction upon such members by the
Maharaja's act of exclusion of as many propert;es as he thought should not be divided would be unjust. Since every member was entitled to an equal share with the Maharaja himself all the properties should be available for partition and this result, which is eminently just, is achieved by the omissio"n of Section 5 from Act 16 of 1961. Therefore, the provision in Act 15 of 1978 omitting Section 5 from the principal Act is a virtue to be commended, not a vice to be con- demned. It is eminently reasonable and to contend against it is obviously unreasonable.
A different criticism has been made regarding the deletion. of Section 4 by Shri Govindan Nair; but it is equally mis-conceived, if we may say so. Section 4 of Act 16 of 1961 provided for the share
of members including those m ventre sa mere. This provision was deleted because its purpose was otherwise served by the substituted Section 3 of Act 16 of 1961 by including a direction to the Board "to effect partition of the Estate and the Palace Fund among all the members entitled to a, share …. under Section 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975. (Act 30 of 1976) ." The effect of the importation of Section 4 of the Abolition Act is to ensure partition per capita among all the members as in the case of a Joint Hindu Family other than an undivided Mitakshara Hindu family. c
c Slll'REME COURT REPORTS [ 1980) I S.C.R. What was otiose, namely, Section 4 of Act 16 of 1961, was cut out. This was merely a drafting operation 'not making any change in . the substantive law bearing upon the shares of the members.
The conten- tion that by this deletion the members of the· Kovilagam had _been made over as hostages to the caprice of the Board of Trustees is a frightful error or disingenuous scare.
In the course of his submissions, counsel had a dig at the Board, which, according to him, was an imperium in imperio, a law unto itself a'nd, therefore, arbitrary. This again is an egregious error. The
Board was not a new creation but an old concoction. Thirty years ago the Ruler brought it into being. Since then, the Kerala legis- lature, in Act 16 of 1961, continued it and the latest legislation now denounced before us recognised this time-honoured entity wherein the heads of the four branches were members and entrusted it with the work of division of assets.
The Board, being an old institution in plenary management since 1949 and wisely composed of the senior- most members of the four branches, is sentimentally and functionally the best instrument to divide and distribute.
Indeed Act l 6 of 1961 had also entrusted the task of partition to the same Board and no member had during nearly two decades challenged the wisdom of the provision. We see no legal ground to blaspheme this Board.
The greater grievance of counsel about the Board was something else. He cont•e'nded that the Board under Section 3(2) was em- powered to effect the partition of the Estate and the Palace Fund "and the partition so effected shall be valid …. "
From this the criticism was spun out that the Board was likely to act in any manner it pleased, sell the properties at any price, distribute the ass•ets at its sweet will or whim and thus reduce the partition of Kovilagam properties to a mock exercise by an unchal!engable Board.
He contrasted this grim picture with the advantageous alternative of a civil suit where the shares were fixed according to law, the properties were valued by a Commissioner, objections to the report of the
Commissioner were considered by the Court and a decw~, preliminary or final, was subject to appeal and further appeal. The judicial process was a great guarantee of the rights of parties which was unavailable before the statutorily immunised and potentially eccentric Board of Trustees . . We remained unmoved by this sombn; picturisation
made up of illusory apprehensions. We have earlier pointed out that the strength of the Cochin Royal family is around 800. The properti•es consist of urban lands, rural lands, buildings and other assets considera hie in volume and value.
A litigative resolution of the conflicts among members with the plethora of interlocutory proceedings plus revisions t • R. v. B. THAMPURAN V. KERALA (Krishna Iyer, 1.) and appeals may be an endless adventure which would surely bank- rupt the poorer members and deny to ewrycme a share in the proper- ties by metes and bounds for a generation to come.
Of course, those who are already in possession of pro1mtics-and counsel for the res- pondent hinted that the petitioners belong to this category-would benefit by striking down this legis:ation and delay in legislative recti- fication o~ the situation and the further litigation
that might be launched aod so on. Those who have, have a vested interest in pro- cratination; those who have not, have an urgent interest in instant jus- tice. In this view, a non-curial instrumentality and procedure for partitioning the properties cannot be condemned as discriminatory. The alternative createld by the statute is quite a reasonable and in our view a better instrument having regard to the totality of factors. Law is not a cocoon and keeps its ey~s wide awake to the realities of life. The
legislation in question bas takc"n note of the fact that the Board has been for decades entrusted by the Maharaja by his Proclamation with the administration of tho;o family estate and no complaints have ever been voiced against their managemerrt
The latter legislation of 1961 has sanctified this Board. That legislation has gone to the exte'nt of corrferring powors of partitioning the Kovilagam properties on this Board and the prese·nt Act of 1978 does nothing more.
We are un- able to understand how what was good and valid in 1961 Act could become vicious and invalid i'n 1978. The composition of the Board and its history and experieno:: convince us that it was a fit instrument for the task entrusted.
The fear expressed before us that the Board may ignore the norms of judicial procedure while settling the rights of parties is misplaced. We do not regard Section 3 of Act 15 of 1978 as dispensing with canons of fairplay of 'natural justice and of quasi-judicial values. We realise that the enormous work of dividing the properties has to be carefully carri~d out.
Quasi-judicial responsibilities are implied by the statute in the Board's functions and if the Board breaches thesf norms and canons the constitutional remedy under Article 226 comes into play.
After all, the Board is a statutory body and not an exe- cutive creature. It has been saddled with effecting the rights of parties and is bound to act quasi-judicially. Its deviances are not
unreviewable in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, we direct the Board to comply with the requirements prescribed in several decisions of this Court in quasi-judicial jurisdictions. Natural justice is obviously the
first as this Court has ruled in a shower of cases especially highlighting in Ma11eka Gandhi's case(') and M. S. Gilfs case(2). This Court has (!) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1976] Supp. SCR 489.
(2) M.S. Gill & Anr v. Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621. c c [.l98Qj 1 S.C.R .. gone to the extent of holding that natural justice require reasons· to· be written for conclui;ions made.
The Organo Chemical /ndMslrles & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.C) this Court has held that t!Jcr, ab- sence of a right of •appeal does not spell arbitrariness. It is further held in the same rulibg that giving of reasons for
conclusions is ordinarily an important component of natural justice in quasHmllcial tribunals. In short, every facility that a party will reasonably reeeive befbre a quasi-judicial body when rights are adjudicated upon, wilt be available befo~e this Board and we mandate it to extend such facilities and opportunities.
W c need hardly mention that when pro· perties are sold parties must be intimated and the principles, embedded in the Partition Act must be taken note of when properties are valued and allotted.
The servio"s of valuers of properties or of Commis· sioners must also be used. Moreover, parties must be given; oppor- tunity to object to reports of Commissioners, if any, appointed. Tn short, the general law, processual and substantive, bearing on allot- ment of properties cannot be thrown to the winds by th•" Board merely because Section 3 does not write these details into it. We must hasten lo caution that no party can hold the Board in ransom by raising vexatious and frivolous objections and puttjng in proceeding after pro- ceeding merely to delay or defeat.
The Board is geared to comple- tion of the partition with a reasonable sp"ed and that purpose ~ust inform its activities. While every party is entitled to a reaso¥1able. voice in the proceedings no party can enjoy the privilege of thwarting the processes of justice.
These observations and directions which are bnilt-in in Section 3, in our view, ar~ sufficient guidelines to repel the submission that the power under Section 3 (2) is unbridled and un- cd!\stitntional.
Partitions are best done by a broad consensus and the Board will remember that constant consultation with the meml!'"r& may facilitate its work and reduce tension and friction. Nor are we impressed with the argument that because appeals are absent justice is jettisoned.
Oftentimes, appeals are the baae of the justice system, especially because the rich can defeat the poor and the weak can be baulked of their rights indefinitely that way. We do not mean to d"cry the right of appeal, but may not gCJ with the petitioner in glorifying it in all situations.
We have emphaised that the Board is a statutory body and when it violates the prescrip- tions of the law or otherwise acts arbitrarily or mala fide, Art. 226 of the Constitution is a corrective. Nothing more is needed because everything needed is implkd in that power.
(!) [1980] I S.C.R. 61 d\. v. B. THAMPURAN v. KERALA (Krishna Tyer,!.) The last and perhaps the least valid snbmission, with meretrieions ,attraction, is the challenge based on unequal legislation picking out ,one from among equals for hostile treatment.
We have held that ~he royal family estate is being partitioned on principles similar to those applicable to all other Kerala Hindu families and the only .difference is a Board instead of a court to allot shm'"S by metes and bounds. This, we have shown, is fully justified by the special circum- 'Stances.
The Cochin Kovilakam vis-a-vis the Kerala State is sui •generis. It has been legislatively dealt with ali a special class throughout the history of Kerala and before. The Act impugned
:has none of the characteristics of class legislation and, is on the other tiand, an equalising measun~ with a pragmatic touch. We negative the specious submission. We ·find no merit in this Special Leave Petition and dismiss it with- -Out costs.
'V.D.K. Petition dismissed. c