Kerala High Court
K.G.Prasannan vs State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA,
1943
WP(C) NO. 24545 OF 2011
PETITIONER/S:
K.G.PRASANNAN
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, CHAITHRAM,,
PULLOORMUCKU, KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
SRI.A.MOHAMED RASHEED
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,, SOCIAL
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN-695
001.
2 KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, CHALACHITRA KALABHAVAN,,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014,,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 STUDIO MANAGER CHITRANJALI STUDIO
KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED,, CHITRANJALI STUDIO COMPLEX,
THIRUVALLAM.P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 027.
4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU.P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
043.
5 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR RR
TALUK OFFICE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, ATTINGAL-695 101.
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KARAVARAM VILLAGE, KARAVARAM-695 605.
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 24545 of 2011
7 ADDL.R7- ALBERT FILM DIRECTOR
M.P.S./242, P.J./4879, KURATHUR LANE,,
POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 101.,
(ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED,
08.11.2011 IN IA.NO.16985/2011)
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.KISHORE
SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN SR.
SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSFDC
SRI.JOSE JONES JOSEPH, SC, KERALA STATE FILM
DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
W.P.(C). No. 24545 of 2011
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
===============================================
W.P.(C) No.24545 of 2011
================================================================
Dated this the 9th day of November, 2021
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following
prayers:
(i) To call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P7
and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing
Exts.P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5 and P-6.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the
4th respondent to conduct an enquiry
regarding the claim of the petitioner about his
non-liability and to pass appropriate orders
and not to resort to revenue recovery steps
and the steps already taken may be ordered to
be recalled.
(iii) Any other appropriate, writ order or direction
also may be granted to meet out justice under
the circumstances of the above case."
2. The petitioner entered into Ext.P1
agreement with the 2nd respondent, whereby the
petitioner had shown his interest to become a credit
holder of the Corporation under its credit card
scheme. The facility was agreed to be availed by the
W.P.(C). No. 24545 of 2011
petitioner for production of his feature film "Kanne
Madanguka". It is the case of the petitioner that
towards the consideration of the said agreement the
petitioner paid an amount of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter
the petitioner did not receive any service of the 2 nd
respondent and thereafter he had done the work by
availing the services from Gemini Studio, Chennai. It
is also stated by the petitioner that since, the
Corporation was not in a position to provide proper
service in time enabling the completion of the
product, petitioner has to mainly depend the 2 nd
respondent on the expectation of getting subsidy and
the film shooting was not taken by the petitioner from
the 2nd respondent nor he had authorized anybody to
made arrangement for the same. The said work was
over in the year 2005 itself and the film was not a
success. It is the case of the petitioner that he had to
meet several commitments, making him financially in
W.P.(C). No. 24545 of 2011
a weak position. Subsequently, the 6 th respondent
and staff approached the petitioner stating that there
is a demand from the 2nd respondent for an amount of
Rs.6,71,079/-. The petitioner was given the copy of
the letter and the requisition made on the part of the
2nd respondent forwarded to the 4 th respondent and
also a letter dated 27.12.2004 stated to have been
issued by Albert, Director. The petitioner has also
obtained a copy of the intimation of the 4 th
respondent to the 2nd respondent and also form No.25
under the Revenue Recovery Act. On receipt of the
same, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 petition before
the 4th respondent stating that he has not made any
orders for making available film for shooting nor he
has authorized anybody and accordingly the revenue
recovery steps should be recalled. But there was no
response. In such circumstances, this writ petition is
filed.
W.P.(C). No. 24545 of 2011
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd and 3rd
respondents. I also heard the learned Government
Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that even as per Ext.P1 agreement, there is
a clause in which it is stated that, if any dispute
arises, the same shall be referred to the Managing
Director, or any other officer of the Corporation as the
Chairman of the Corporation may decide and the
decision of the said officer shall be final and binding
upon both the parties. According to the petitioner, a
dispute was already raised before the 2 nd respondent
and the same was not considered by the authority in
accordance to clause 35 of Ext.P1.
5. On the other hand, the learned Standing
Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents submitted that
W.P.(C). No. 24545 of 2011
no such dispute was raised by the petitioner so far. It
is also submitted that even in this writ petition, there
is no interim order passed by this Court. Even then,
the recovery proceedings are kept pending by the
revenue authorities without any reason. The Standing
Counsel submitted that there is nothing to interfere
with the recovery proceedings and there may be a
direction to continue with the recovery as requested
by the 2nd respondent in the requisition.
6. I considered the contentions of the petitioner
and the respondents. I perused Ext.P1 agreement. It
will be better to extract clause 35 of Ext.P1.
"35. That in the case of any dispute
regarding any matter arising out or relating
to this agreement or its effects or
interpretations the said dispute shall be
referred to the Managing Director or any
other Officer of the Corporation as the
Chairman of the Corporation may decide and
the decision of the said Officer shall be final
and binding upon both the parties. The
provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940
W.P.(C). No. 24545 of 2011
will apply mutatis mutandis."
7. A perusal of clause 35 would show that in
case of any dispute regarding any matter arising out
or relating to this agreement or its effects or
interpretation the said dispute shall be referred to the
Managing Director or any other officer of the
Corporation as the Chairman of the Corporation may
decide and the decision of the said officer shall be
final and binding upon both the parties. Admittedly,
there is no such decision by the Managing Director or
any other officer of the Corporation appointed by the
Chairman of the Corporation. The petitioner says that
he raised such dispute. I think the matter can be
referred to the Managing Director of the 2 nd
respondent and there can be a direction to the
Managing Director to consider the dispute and take
appropriate decision in accordance to law after giving
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till then,
W.P.(C). No. 24545 of 2011
status quo regarding the recovery proceedings can be
continued. I make it clear that, I did not considered
the matter on merit, and the Managing Director of the
2nd respondent can take appropriate decision, in
accordance to law, after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is free to file
a fresh representation, before the Managing Director
and the same can be considered by the Managing
director.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the
following manner:
1. The petitioner is free to file a
representation narrating his grievance
before the 2nd respondent, within one
month from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
2. Once such a representation is received
by the Managing Director of the 2 nd
W.P.(C). No. 24545 of 2011
respondent, the 2nd respondent will
consider the same, in accordance to
clause 35 of Ext.P1 and pass appropriate
orders in it, after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.
3. The above exercise should be completed
by the Managing Director of the 2 nd
respondent, as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate, within four months from the
date of receipt of the representation.
4. Till then, the status quo as on today,
regarding the recovery proceedings will
continue.
5. The petitioner is free to approach the 2 nd
respondent to get the additional
documents, if any, for the purpose of
enquiry, and the 2nd respondent will do
the needful, in accordance to law.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
das
W.P.(C). No. 24545 of 2011
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24545/2011
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO 272775
DATED 16.12.2004 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO
KSFDC/CS/INV/722/08 DATED 12.8.2008
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION FOR
RECOVERY DATED 19.8.2008
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
27.12.2004 OF ALBERT, DIRECTOR
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO
R9.124808/2008 DATED 9.1.2009 OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO 25
CERTIFICATE OFF RECOVERY NO
R9.124808/2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
6.7.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 NIL
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LABORATORY CONTRACT
NO GCCL/JAN 05/CONT/224 DATED 4.1.2005
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM
, CERTIFICATE NO VIS/1/10/2005/-THI
DATED 9.3.2005
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF
FILM, CERTIFICATE NO CIL/1/12/2005/TH
I DATED 14.3.2005
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO
KSFDC/CS/INV/722/08 DATED 12.8.2008
W.P.(C). No. 24545 of 2011
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO G23-217/09
DATED 21.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE POST
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EVIDENCING SERVICE OF
P2 ON THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF PROJECT REPORT DATED
22.12.2004 OF THE FILIM KANNE
MADANGUKA SUBMITTED BY THE WRIT
PETITIONER BEFORE KERALA FLIM
PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION
Exhibit R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE CLEARANCE
CERTIFICATE DATED 22.12.2004 ISSUED BY
THE KERALA FILM PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION
Exhibit R7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER
DATED 23.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE ADDITIONAL 7TH
RESPONDENT
