Kerala High Court
C.V.George vs The Director Of Ports And Another on 24 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA,
1943
WP(C) NO. 2014 OF 2011
PETITIONER/S:
C.V.GEORGE, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. VARUNNY, DELTA MARINE WORKS, EDAKOCHI-
682006, NOW RESIDING AT 2/453 B, OORAKKADU
ROAD,, PUKKATTUPADY, EDATHALA.P.O.
BY ADV SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS AND ANOTHER
DIRECTORATE OF PORTS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF PORTS TRIVANDRUM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 2014 of 2011
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
=================================================
W.P.(C) No.2014 of 2011
=============================================================
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2021
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers"
"(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ
or order quashing Exhibit P8 notice as illegal,
arbitrary and barred by time.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order directing the 1st
respondent to permit the petitioner to sell the Tug
under a private treaty with 1st respondent to
considers and adjust the amount collected in sale
against the liability of petitioner or alternatively
direct the 1st respondent to recover Exhibit P8
amount by making first charge on the Tug either
by sale in public auction or such other means.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd
respondent to dispose of Exhibit P9 in accordance
with law before claiming the amount under
W.P.(C). No. 2014 of 2011
Exhibit P8.
(iv) issue such other appropriate writ or order which
is deemed just and necessary on the facts and
circumstances of the case. "
2. The petitioner entered into an agreement on
23.03.1996 with the 1st respondent for design and construction
of a 600 HP Tug for a cost of Rs.80,64,472/- and the period of
agreement was 16 months. It is the case of the petitioner that
the contract was terminated for delay and default in completing
the work. The petitioner approached this Court against the
termination of contract and other reliefs before terminating the
contract by the 1st respondent which was dismissed and the
appeal also dismissed as withdrawn being the dispute arising
out of a contractual obligation. Thereafter, the liability of the
petitioner was fixed and Ext.P8 recovery notice was issued.
Aggrieved by Ext.P8, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9. When
there was no response, this writ petition was filed.
W.P.(C). No. 2014 of 2011
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
in Ext.P4 the amount is only Rs.66.78 lakhs, whereas in Ext.P8
it is more than one crore, i.e., 1,50,61,949/-. According to the
counsel the amount is assessed even without giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also submitted that
Ext.P9 is the representation submitted by the petitioner. Even
though, various contentions were raised by the petitioner, at
last, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will be
satisfied, if Ext.P9 is considered by the authority concerned,
after giving an opportunity of hearing and till then, the interim
order already in force may be extended.
5. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand,
submitted that huge amount is due and the difference of amount
is because of the penalty imposed by the authority concerned.
W.P.(C). No. 2014 of 2011
According to the Government Pleader, there are clauses in the
agreement to substantiate this difference in the amount
mentioned in Exts.P4 and P8.
6. I don't want to make any observation about the
merits of the case. The petitioner can raise all his contentions
before the authority concerned and there can be a direction to
the authority concerned to consider Ext.P9, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All the contentions
raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following
manner:
1. The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P9
representation, and pass appropriate orders in it, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
2. Before passing final order, an opportunity of hearing
W.P.(C). No. 2014 of 2011
should be given to the petitioner.
3. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this
writ petition are left open.
4. The petitioner will produce a copy of this writ
petition together with a certified copy of this
judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance.
5. All further proceedings consequent to Ext.P8 are
stayed till final orders are passed in Ext.P9.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
das
W.P.(C). No. 2014 of 2011
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2014/2011
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT 23.3.1996
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
14.11.2003
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
27.12.2003
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
17.10.2003
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED
18.6.2005
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
7.9.2007
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION
DATED26.7.2008
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10.08.2010
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 11.09.2010
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REQUISITION 12.10.2010
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 25.11.2005
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF IRS DATED
28.3.2000
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19.1.2011
UNDER SECTION 7
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF SECTION 34 NOTICE DATED
19.1.2011
