M.T. Rahim vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 1658 Ker

W.P.(C) No.42147 of 2022                   1




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
          FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 7TH MAGHA, 1944
                             WP(C) NO. 42147 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              M.T. RAHIM
              AGED 62 YEARS
              S/O MUHAMMAD MUSTHAFA RAWTHER, AKKANATTU PUTHEN VEEDU,
              NEDUMON P.O, EZHAMKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA-691556.
              BY ADVS.
              P.B.KRISHNAN
              P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
              SABU GEORGE
              MANU VYASAN PETER


RESPONDENTS:

      1       STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,
              SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
      2       KERALA STATE HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT
              CORPORATION (HORTICORP),
              HEAD OFFICE, UDAYAGIRI, POOJAPPURA, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM,
              PIN-695012 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING.

              BY ADV RAHUL SURENDRAN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2
              SMT.DEEPA.N., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   27.01.2023,       THE    COURT   ON       THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.42147 of 2022                    2




                                     JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of January, 2023

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

1. issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent No.2 to pay the amount due to the Petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

2. grant such other appropriate relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;

3. Dispense production of English translation of Exhibits in Malayalam language

2.According to the petitioner, petitioner has been supplying vegetables to

various District Procurement Centers (DPC) of the Kerala State Horticultural

Products Development Corporation (Horticorp), Thiruvananthapuram - the 2 nd

respondent, from 2018 onwards as per its demand. Case of the petitioner is that

business was being done by the petitioner after availing a loan of Rs.1,57,00,000/-

from the Federal Bank. Anyhow, it is submitted that consequent to the supply,

amounts from the 2nd respondent have fallen due to the petitioner, which is now at

Rs.1,72,38,179.75.

3. The case projected by the petitioner is that even though earnest efforts

were made by petitioner to get the amounts released, the 2 nd respondent is

unmindful of the same and therefore, the petitioner had no other alternative than

to file this writ petition.

4. I have heard, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Sabu George, learned

Senior Government Pleader Smt.Deepa.N., learned Standing counsel Sri.Rahul

Surendran for the Horticorp and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

5. On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that amounts are

due but the 2nd respondent is in an utter financial crisis, which disabled the 2 nd

respondent from releasing the amounts to the petitioner. However, learned

Standing Counsel submitted that the amounts claimed by the petitioner is not

correct and there is some calculational error.

6. In fact, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to the

Horticorp to release the payment without any prior demand which is a mandatory

requisite to seek a writ of mandamus. I think it is only appropriate that since the

dispute is raised with respect to the quantification, petitioner is permitted to submit

a representation before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is directed to

consider the same and take any consequential action.

7. In that view of the matter, petitioner is given the liberty to submit a

representation to the 2nd respondent, within two weeks from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment, which shall be considered by the 2 nd respondent, at the

earliest, and at any rate, within one month thereafter, after securing participation

of the petitioner. If any amounts are found to be due to the petitioner, it shall be

released in 8 (eight) Equal Monthly Installments from the succeeding month of

consideration, as directed above.

Sd/-

                                                 SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                   JUDGE





                              APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42147/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1            TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY, DATED 30-12-2021 ISSUED

BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF RESPONDENT NO.2.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT DUE TO THE PETITIONER WITH THE SPLIT UP DETAILS OF EACH DPC.