Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala Rep. By The Secretary vs C.A. Sahir on 8 July, 2025
2025:KER:49651
W.A No.1862 of 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1862 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.06.2022 IN WP(C)
NO.18096 OF 2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
MALAPPURAM.
5 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER
TIRUR, PIN - 676101
BY SRI.SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVT.PLEADER
2025:KER:49651
W.A No.1862 of 2022
2
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WP(C):
C.A. SAHIR
S/O LIBRAHIM, DRIVER, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, TIRUR,
PIN - 676101
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
SHRI.K.P.SUDHEER
SMT.ANJALI MENON
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2025, THE COURT 08.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49651
W.A No.1862 of 2022
3
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 16.06.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.18096 of 2012 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by setting aside Ext.P4 dated 29.02.2012 being unsustainable, illegal and arbitrary.
2. The appellants herein are the respondents in the writ petition and the respondent is the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/petitioner, while working as the Driver in the office of the District Supply Officer, Malappuram in the year 2004, while driving the official vehicle, met with an accident with an autorickshaw and the passenger sustained injuries. OP(MV) No.284 of 2005 was filed by the passenger before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The learned Tribunal passed an Award of Rs.71,077/- along with 7% interest with effect from 2025:KER:49651 W.A No.1862 of 2022 4 01.01.2005 till the date of payment. The Tribunal held that the respondent/petitioner who was driving the official vehicle was rash and negligent in causing the accident and therefore, held primarily liable. The owner of the vehicle is the District Supply Officer, Malappuram who was also held vicariously liable. The vehicle was not having valid insurance at the time of accident. Therefore, the driver and the owner were made jointly and severally liable for paying the compensation.
4. The Government, as per Ext.P2 order, deposited the entire amount from the State Exchequer. Thereafter, recovery was ordered equally from the persons concerned i.e. the driver and the owner. The 50% amount comes to Rs.53,743/-. In a separate case, CC No. 686 of 2004, registered before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, was decided by judgment dated 12.06.2009, and the respondent/petitioner was found guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay fine. Thereafter, the Government, as per letter dated 25.01.2012, initiated action to recover half of the amount from the 2025:KER:49651 W.A No.1862 of 2022 5 respondent/petitioner and the remaining half from the District Supply Officer, Malappuram. Since the respondent/petitioner retired from service, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against him to recover the same. Being aggrieved, the respondent/petitioner had preferred the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed on the ground that the Government cannot recover the amount from the respondent/petitioner so far as there is no direction to that effect or liberty granted by the MACT. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is against the principles of law and hence liable to be set aside. Learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that the respondent was found guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay fine for rash and negligent driving. Learned Single Judge also failed to consider the fact that since the accident took place, because of rash and negligent driving of the respondent/petitioner, he was liable to pay the amount and therefore, the recovery was ordered.
2025:KER:49651
W.A No.1862 of 2022
6
He further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that it was the responsibility of the respondent/petitioner being a responsible Government servant, to see that the vehicle has got all valid and updated records as mandated by law. The respondent/petitioner was negligent in keeping the insurance of the vehicle valid and updated and also drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. Therefore, the Government is entitled to recover the loss from him. In the present case, the respondent has caused loss to the Government due to his own fault, and the Government has every right to recover the same. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner, vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the respondent was discharging his official duties when he met with the accident. MACT, at no point of time, had stated that the driver of the vehicle would be responsible to make the payment. The liability was fixed jointly and severally. There 2025:KER:49651 W.A No.1862 of 2022 7 was no direction by the MACT to pay and recover the amount from the employee. It was not the duty of the respondent to get the vehicle insured, but the same was the duty of the custodian/concerned officer to have the vehicle insured. Even the order of recovery could not have been passed at the back of the respondent. There should have been a proper enquiry and hearing granted to the respondent, since the award of the MACT cannot be interpreted to the suitability of the authority. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition. Therefore, no interference is necessary in the present appeal. The writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that there was no direction to recover the amount from the respondent who was arrayed as one of the respondents before the MACT. Once the award of the MACT has been satisfied, the 3rd appellant herein could not have ordered for recovery of the amount, that too, at the back of the respondent, and as such, the 2025:KER:49651 W.A No.1862 of 2022 8 order tantamounts to over-reaching the order of the MACT. Moreover, the District Supply Officer was directed to deposit the amount within one month, and the insurance company was exonerated. Learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that it was the responsibility of the officer concerned to get the vehicle insured. In any case, the respondent is not liable to get the insurance renewed. In such a situation, the learned Single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition.
The writ appeal, being bereft of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp