K.M.Jalal vs The Secretary To Government
2021 Latest Caselaw 15535 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
  FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943
                   WP(C) NO. 14658 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

           K.M.JALAL,
           AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, KANNANCHAKKASSERIL
           HOUSE, PATTANAM, VADAKKEKKARA P.O., NORTH
           PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-680 352.
           BY ADVS.
           P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR)
           A.G.VISWAMBHARAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1      THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
           HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
           SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
    2      THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
           HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 009.
    3      THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
           HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, PONNANI
           DIVISION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
           KERALA, PIN-679 583.


           SMT.B.VINITHA GOVERNMENT PLEADER.

        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.14658 of 2021               2


                     W.P.(C) No.14658 of 2021
               -----------------------------------------------
                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a contractor who is assigned the right to

collect toll from Ponnani Fishing Harbour for a period of one

year from 30.12.2020 to 29.12.2021. It is admitted that the

petitioner has not remitted the amounts payable in terms of

the agreement entered into with the respondents. According to

the petitioner, he was not in a position to collect toll as

estimated by him on account of the restrictions imposed by the

Government to contain the pandemic, Covid-19 and it is on

account of the said reason that he could not remit the dues as

agreed upon. When the petitioner was called upon to pay the

arrears due from him in terms of Ext.P3 notice, he preferred

Ext.P4 representation to the second respondent seeking

indulgence to remit the amounts due less the amount already

paid, in convenient instalments and also seeking orders

extending the term of contract. It is pointed out that Ext.P4 is

yet to be considered by the second respondent. The petitioner,

therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ

petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

also the learned Government Pleader.

3. As noted, the grievance of the petitioner is that

he was unable to collect toll as expected by him on account of

the restrictions imposed by the Government to contain the

pandemic, Covid-19. No one can dispute the fact that the life in

the State has been disrupted due to the pandemic. In the

circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition can be

disposed of in the interests of justice directing the second

respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4

representation after affording the petitioner an opportunity of

hearing, within two weeks. Ordered accordingly. It is made

clear that the second respondent would be free to afford the

opportunity of hearing ordered to be given to the petitioner

through electronic mode as well.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

YKB

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14658/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT NO.01/HED/EE/2020-21 DATED 30.12.2020 SIGNED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT 3 AND THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT GIVEN TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PONNANI BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21.4.21.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A1/825/EEM DATED 10.6.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT 3 TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.7.2021 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER.