Vijayan Pillai S vs Biju Prabhakar
2022 Latest Caselaw 11373 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11373 Ker
Judgement Date : 2 December, 2022

Kerala High Court

Vijayan Pillai S vs Biju Prabhakar on 2 December, 2022

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
        Friday, the 2nd day of December 2022 / 11th Agrahayana, 1944
   CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 2227 OF 2022(S) IN RP 209/2022 IN WP(C)5454/2020

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN RP/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):


     VIJAYAN PILLAI S, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SPECIAL
     GRADE DRIVER (RTD) KSRTC RESIDING AT KARYADIYIL HOUSE, PERINGALA
     P.O., KAYAMKULAM 690537

    BY ADV R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

RESPONDENT/1ST PETITIONER IN RP/1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):


  1. BIJU PRABHAKAR IAS, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRANSPORT
     BHAVAN, FORT, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA, INDIA, PIN :695023
  2. ADDL.R2.SRI.SHAJI, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD
     TRANSPORT CORPORATION.

ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.12.2022 IN COC 2227/2022.

    BY ADV DEEPU THANKAN

     This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
02.12.2022, the court on the same day passed the following:

                                                             P.T.O
                    AMIT RAWAL, J
                  -----------------------
          Cont.Case (C) No. 2227 of 2022
                   ----------------------
      Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2022


                          ORDER

Contempt petition against the order dated

08.07.2022 in RP No.209 of 2022 in W.P.(C)No.5454 of

2020 was filed in 31.10.2022 and notice was issued on

15.11.2022. The grievance as expressed by the

petitioner in the writ petition was that petitioner had

stood surety for one Mr.Rajendra Babu who had taken a

loan from the 4th respondent in the aforesaid Writ

Petition i.e., the Co-operative Society. Since he was in

employment of the Kerala State Road Transport

Corporation, the society sent a requisition for recovering

the amount on account of default, not only from the

defaulter but also from the surety i.e., the petitioner. An

amount of Rs.2,88,240/- (Rupees Two lakh eighty eight

thousand two hundred and forty only) containing two

components i.e., Rs.1,24,740/-(Rupees One lakh twenty

four thousand seven hundred and forty only) i.e., the Cont.case (C) No. 2227/22

liability of Mr.Rajendra Babu and Rs.1,63,500/- (Rupees

One lakh sixty three thousand five hundred only) liability

of the petitioner. This Court, before the review could be

filed, directed the KSRTC to give the break-up of the

entire amount by including Rs.1,63,500/- (Rupees One

lakh sixty three thousand five hundred only) liability of

Mr.Rajendra Babu. But later on an application filed for

review and corrected the aforementioned error. The

directions contained in the review order reads thus:-

"Thus I am of the view that the penultimate paragraph of the judgment of this Court requires to be reviewed to the extent that the Corporation before returning the amount as ordered by this Court will issue a notice to the

petitioner giving the break-up of the amount to be recovered from him and paid to the Society as well as that of the amount due from Rajendra Babu and paid to the Society. On receipt of the break-up, the respondent would be given a chance to appear before the Society for reconciliation and thereafter whatever the amount/figure is arrived at, which was actually recovered from the salary of the petitioner towards the dues of Rajendra Babu, the same is Cont.case (C) No. 2227/22

ordered to be refunded to the petitioner, non- applicant in the review petition. Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Both the petitions are disposed of. Liberty is granted to the parties to apprise this Court by moving any application."

2. The corporation was required to issue a notice

to the petitioner by giving the break-up of the amount to

be recovered from him and not in the manner that it was

Rs.1,24,740/- or Rs.2,88,240/- and the amount paid to

the Society much less the amount due from Mr.Rajendra

Babu and paid to the Society, with some other

directions.

3. Today a communication dated 26.10.2022 has

been placed on record to show that there has been

compliance of the first direction by issuing a notice to

the petitioner that an amount of Rs.1,23,708/- (Rupees

One lakh twenty three thousand seven hundred and

eight only) was recovered from the salary of the surety Cont.case (C) No. 2227/22

i.e., the petitioner Sri.Vijayan Pillai. English translation

of the communication reads as under:

"Based on the information collected from the Alappuzha Office, as per the writ petition referred above, late Shri Rajendra Babu, Driver, Alappuzha Unit had taken a loan from Society Kayamkulam No.A271. After the passing of late Rajendra Babu, an amount of Rs.1,23,708/- which was recovered from the salary of the surety Shri Vijayan Pillai from October 2016 to May 2019 was remitted without interest."

4. I am afraid that there is no compliance of the

aforementioned directions as it neither contain the

break-up of the amount which had been recovered from

the petitioner and paid to the Society much less of

Mr.Rajendra Babu. The direction was to be complied

within forty five(45) days from the date of receipt of the

certified copy of the order. The action has actuated only

on 26.10.2021. It appears that the officers at the helm

of affairs are too casual in not complying with the Cont.case (C) No. 2227/22

directions of the Court and had taken rather the Court

for a ride.

In this view of the matter, I direct Sri.Shaji, Chief