Dm Education And Research ... vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 6697 Ker

W.P(c).No.288 of 2021              1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

  THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.288 OF 2021(I)


PETITIONERS:

       1       DM EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION
               A CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST HAVING ITS
               REGISTERED OFFICE AT NASEERA NAGAR, MEPPADI P.O.,
               WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA, REP.BY ITS
               AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND LAW OFFICER, MR. ZALARI
               KALLANGODAN, AGED 41 YEARS

       2       DM WAYANAD INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
               NASEERA NAGAR, MEPPADI P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT,
               KERALA, INDIA, REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND
               LAW OFFICER, MR. ZALARI KALLANGODAN, AGED 41 YEARS

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
               SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
               SRI.P.PRIJITH
               SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
               SRI.R.GITHESH
               SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
               SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
               SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
               SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.

RESPONDENTS:

       1       THE STATE OF KERALA
               REP.BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND
               SKILLS 682 031.

       2       THE COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE AGENCY KERALA
               (CHIAK)
               7TH FLOOR, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

       3       RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
               H BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, DHIRUBHAI AMBANI KNOWLEDGE
               CITY, NAVI MUMBAI - 400 710 REP.BY ITS MANAGING
               DIRECTOR.
 W.P(c).No.288 of 2021                  2




       4       NATIONAL GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE
               3RD, 7TH AND 9TH FLOOR, TOWER-I, JEEVAN BHARATI
               BUILDING, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI 110 001,
               REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

               R3   BY   ADV.   SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
               R3   BY   ADV.   SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
               R3   BY   ADV.   SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
               R3   BY   ADV.   SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
               R3   BY   ADV.   SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
               R3   BY   ADV.   SRI.RAJA KANNAN
               R3   BY   ADV.   SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA
               R4   BY   ADV.   SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

               SMT.VINITHA.B, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
               SMT.K.S.SANTHI, STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(c).No.288 of 2021                       3




                                      P.V.ASHA, J.
                   -----------------------------------------------------
                              W.P(c) No.288 of 2021 - I
                    ----------------------------------------------------
                     Dated this the 25th day of February, 2021

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioners are aggrieved by the Ext.P10 order passed by the 4 th respondent

on the ground that they were not afforded an opportunity of hearing as provided in

clause 16 D(d) of Ext.P1 tender notice.

2. It is stated that the 2nd respondent had been providing services on an

agreement entered into with the 3rd respondent for the beneficiaries under "Ayushman

Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana" (PMJAY) and "Karunya Arogya Suraksha

Padhathi" (KASP) and the 3rd respondent had executed Ext.P2 agreement pursuant to

Ext.P1 notice inviting tender for implementation of the scheme. It is stated that the 3 rd

respondent had rejected 146 claims prepared by the 2 nd petitioner under the aforesaid two

schemes and the 2nd petitioner had approached the District Grievance Redressal

Committee (DGRC), Wayanad which as per Ext.P3 directed to reconsider the claims. It

is stated that even though the 3 rd respondent had approached the Kerala State Grievance

Redressal committee, their appeal was rejected. As against the same, the 3 rd respondent

approached the National Grievance Redressal committee filing Ext.P6 appeal. The said

appeal was allowed as per Ext.P10. The case of the petitioners is that as per the

provisions contained in clause 16 which relates to grievance redressal and sub clause

D(d) there of, the Grievance Redressal Committee has to arrive at a reasoned decision

and such decisions shall be given after following the principles of natural justice,

including giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

3. Even though the petitioner had approached this Court, in the meanwhile in

the Writ Petition No.19852 of 2020 and this Court had, as per Ext.P7 judgment, directed

the 4th respondent to consider the appeal filed by the 3 rd respondent and to pass orders, it

is seen that Ext.P10 order was passed even before the judgment was rendered by this

Court.

4. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioners

have never raised a claim for hearing even when they approached this Court and their

purpose is only to delay the matter.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the

3rd respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is on noncompliance of clause 16 D(d)

of Ext.P1 tender notice, which reads as follows:

"D. Grievance Redressal Mechanism xxxxx xxxx xxxxxx d. The relevant Grievance Redressal Committee shall arrive at a reasoned decision within 30 days of receipt of the grievance. The decision of the relevant Grievance Redressal Committee shall be taken by majority vote of its members. Such decision shall be given after following the principles of natural justice, including giving the parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard."

xxxx xxxx xxxx"

6. When the entire proceedings are covered by the provisions contained in

Ext.P1 and those provisions provide for redressal of grievance after affording an

opportunity of hearing to the parties, it was only appropriate for the 4 th respondent to pass

orders after affording an opportunity to the affected parties. Relevant provisions in

Ext.P10 are not seen complied with while passing Ext.P10 order.

Therefore, Ext.P10 shall stand set aside to the extent it relates to the petitioners.

The 4th respondent shall pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners, in accordance with clause 16 D(d) of Ext.P1.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

rtr/

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE TENDER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FEBRUARY,2019.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH THE 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEETING OF THE KARUNYA AROGYA SYRAKSHA PADHATHI (AB-

PMJAY/KASP)DISTRICT GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE (DGRC), WAYANAD DATED 31.12.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 4.2.2020, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE STATE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 17.2.2020.

EXHIBIT P6              TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE 3RD
                        RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NATIONAL GRIEVANCE
                        REDRESSAL COMMITTEE (NGRC), THE 4TH
                        RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7              TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.9.2020 IN
                        W.P.(C).NO.19852 OF 2020 OF THIS HON'BLE
                        COURT.

EXHIBIT P8              TRUE COPY OF LETTER 7.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE
                        2ND PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
                        CONVEYING THE EXHIBIT P7 JUDGMENT.

EXHIBIT P9              TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
                        DATED 16.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P10             TRUE COPY OF DECISION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
                        DATED 7.9.2020.