Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Kerala High Court
Geso George. N vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 8518 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
GESO GEORGE. N, AGED 36 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR, CENTRAL ENGINEERING CO,
S/O. N. J. GEORGE, NELLISSERY HOUSE,
CHITTISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680001.
BY ADVS.RENJITH B.MARAR
LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
ARUN POOMULLI
PREETHA S CHANDRAN
ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES COOPERATION LTD.(SUPPLYCO),
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI - 682020.
3 KERALA HEDLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
FIRST FLOOR, M.A. COMPLEX, T.B. ROAD,
PALAKKAD - 678014.
4 THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS BOARD,
PONNANI ROAD, VALAKKAD,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001.
5 THE DEPOT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO,
ALATHOOR DEPO, PALAKKAD - 678541.
BY ADV THOMAS ABRAHAM
SMT.C.S.SHEEJA, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).17850/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17850 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
GESO GEORGE. N, AGED 36 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR, CENTRAL ENGINEERING CO,
S/O. N. J. GEORGE, NELLISSERY HOUSE,
CHITTISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680001.
BY ADVS.
RENJITH B.MARAR
LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
ARUN POOMULLI
PREETHA S CHANDRAN
ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM - 695001.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES COOPERATION LTD.
(SUPPLYCO), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, MAVELIBHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR,
KOCHI - 682020.
3 KERALA HEDLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO, FIRST FLOOR,
M.A. COMPLEX, T.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678014.
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
-3-
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS BOARD,
PONNANI ROAD, VALAKKAD,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001.
5 THE DEPOT MANAGER,
SUPPLYCO, ALATHOOR DEPO,
PALAKKAD., PIN - 678541.
6 THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR,
ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678541.
BY ADVS.
MOLLY JACOB MOLLY
THOMAS ABRAHAM
SMT C S SHEEJA-SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).8518/2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
-4-
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.8518/2023, 17850/2023] These two Writ Petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, who is stated to have been a Transport Contractor engaged by the 'SUPPLYCO' under a contract in the past. He has produced Ext.P1 in WP(C)No.8518/2023 - being the copy of Agreement entered into by him with the 'SUPPLYCO' - in substantiation and says that all contribution to the Head-load Workers Welfare Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) was remitted in time; and that even if there had been any delay, it was only because the 'SUPPLYCO' was not paying him at the right time.
2. The petitioner says that, however, in spite of this, Ext.P6 in WP(C)No.8518/2023 was issued without even having issued him a notice prior to it, thus denying him the opportunity of WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023 -5- filing objections against it; and therefore, that he has been left without any other option but to approach this Court. He adds that, pending the afore Writ Petition, he has been issued with Exts.P7 and P8 in WP(C)No.17850/2023, which are notices under the Revenue Recovery Act, enforcing recovery of the amount impugned in the earlier Writ Petition and thus that he has been forced to file the second Writ Petition as well. He thus prays that both Writ Petitions be allowed because, the amount quantified against him by the 'Board' is illegal, without any basis and that attempt of recovery is time barred and impermissible under Section 36 of the Kerala Head-load Workers Act, 1978.
3. The petitioner also has a case that if the calculations are properly considered, no amounts would be due from him because he had WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023 -6- remitted the contributions to the 'Board' as and when payments were made to him by the 'SUPPLYCO' and that if at all there had been any delay, it was only on account of the factum of the latter having not paid in time, thus incapacitating him from making remittances within the statutory time frame.
4. However, Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned Standing Counsel for the Board, controverted the afore submissions, arguing that, even if the assertion that the 'SUPPLYCO' had delayed payments is taken to be true, it would not come to the aide of the petitioner because, once he engaged the services of the head-load workers, he was expected to make remittances within time and without delay. He argued that, in addition to the afore, when one examines Ext.P6 in WP(C)No.8518/2023, it is not merely the damages that have been demanded, but also actual WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023 -7- arrears; and therefore, that both these Writ Petitions are without any merit.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.C.S.Sheeja, submitted that the official respondents have only acted in terms of law in issuing the notices impugned in WP(C)No.17850/2023, based on the computation made by the 'Board' - namely Ext.P6 in WP(C)No.8518/2023. She submitted that, therefore, no reliefs can be sought against the official respondents, since they are only discharging their official duties.
6. I have evaluated and considered the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the various materials available on record.
7. It is without doubt, as is also admitted, that Ext.P6 in WP(C)No.8518/2023 has not been issued by the 'Board' after having heard the petitioner. When the petitioner WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023 -8- asserts that the amounts therein do not reflect the true affairs and that he had actually not committed any default, thus making it impermissible for any damages to have been imposed against him, it was certainly incumbent upon the 'Board' to have heard him also, after having given him an opportunity through a notice. This was the basic sine qua non of a fair procedure, particularly when the petitioner asserts before this Court that he has committed no default.
8. Add to the afore, the further contention of the petitioner - that, even if there had been any delay, it was only on account of the factum that the 'SUPPLYCO' had delayed payment to him under the contract - perhaps it is not a ground for a denial of liability, but may be one for mitigation, which, of course, is for the 'Board' to have considered in its proper perspective. WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023 -9- Here again, the petitioner ought to have been given notice, so that he could have raised all such defences within the ambit of the reliefs that he can claim.
9. Viewed from such perspective, I am certain that Ext.P6 in W.P(C)No.8518/2023 cannot find the favour of this Court. I, however, clarify that this Court has not adjudicated the merits of the said order, but solely that it has been issued without notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to file objections against it and to explain the demand.
10. In the afore circumstances, I am left without any doubt that the matter must re-engage the attention of the 'Board' appropriately, after hearing the petitioner; subsequent to which alone, can any action for recovery be initiated against him.
Resultantly, these Writ Petitions are WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023 -10- ordered with the following directions:
(a) W.P(C)No.8518/2023 is allowed and Ext.P6 is quashed. The competent Authority of the 'Board' is directed to reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(b) W.P(C)No.17850/2023 is allowed and Exts.P7 and P8 are set aside; however, clarifying that, subject to the exercise ordered in (a) above, the Authorities will be at liberty to initiate the recovery proceedings in terms of law, following due procedure.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rr/akv WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023 -11- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17850/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 06.02.2021 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND SUPPLYCO EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF AN APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS DATED NIL EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 3.12.2019 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SUPPLYCO ON 3.09.2020 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 1.09.2021 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.2.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4THRESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.5.2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.5.2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023 -12- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8518/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 06.02.2021 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE SUPPLYCO EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF AN APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 3.12.2019 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SUPPLYCO ON 3.09.2020 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 1.09.2021 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.2.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4 TH RESPONDENT