Kerala High Court
Geso George. N vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 8518 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
GESO GEORGE. N, AGED 36 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR, CENTRAL ENGINEERING CO,
S/O. N. J. GEORGE, NELLISSERY HOUSE,
CHITTISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680001.
BY ADVS.RENJITH B.MARAR
LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
ARUN POOMULLI
PREETHA S CHANDRAN
ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES COOPERATION LTD.(SUPPLYCO),
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI - 682020.
3 KERALA HEDLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
FIRST FLOOR, M.A. COMPLEX, T.B. ROAD,
PALAKKAD - 678014.
4 THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS BOARD,
PONNANI ROAD, VALAKKAD,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001.
5 THE DEPOT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO,
ALATHOOR DEPO, PALAKKAD - 678541.
BY ADV THOMAS ABRAHAM
SMT.C.S.SHEEJA, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).17850/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17850 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
GESO GEORGE. N, AGED 36 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR, CENTRAL ENGINEERING CO,
S/O. N. J. GEORGE, NELLISSERY HOUSE,
CHITTISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680001.
BY ADVS.
RENJITH B.MARAR
LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
ARUN POOMULLI
PREETHA S CHANDRAN
ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM - 695001.
2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES COOPERATION LTD.
(SUPPLYCO), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, MAVELIBHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR,
KOCHI - 682020.
3 KERALA HEDLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO, FIRST FLOOR,
M.A. COMPLEX, T.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678014.
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
-3-
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS BOARD,
PONNANI ROAD, VALAKKAD,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001.
5 THE DEPOT MANAGER,
SUPPLYCO, ALATHOOR DEPO,
PALAKKAD., PIN - 678541.
6 THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR,
ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678541.
BY ADVS.
MOLLY JACOB MOLLY
THOMAS ABRAHAM
SMT C S SHEEJA-SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).8518/2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
-4-
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.8518/2023, 17850/2023]
These two Writ Petitions have been filed by
the same petitioner, who is stated to have been
a Transport Contractor engaged by the 'SUPPLYCO'
under a contract in the past. He has produced
Ext.P1 in WP(C)No.8518/2023 - being the copy of
Agreement entered into by him with the
'SUPPLYCO' - in substantiation and says that all
contribution to the Head-load Workers Welfare
Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'
for short) was remitted in time; and that even
if there had been any delay, it was only because
the 'SUPPLYCO' was not paying him at the right
time.
2. The petitioner says that, however, in
spite of this, Ext.P6 in WP(C)No.8518/2023 was
issued without even having issued him a notice
prior to it, thus denying him the opportunity of
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
filing objections against it; and therefore,
that he has been left without any other option
but to approach this Court. He adds that,
pending the afore Writ Petition, he has been
issued with Exts.P7 and P8 in
WP(C)No.17850/2023, which are notices under the
Revenue Recovery Act, enforcing recovery of the
amount impugned in the earlier Writ Petition and
thus that he has been forced to file the second
Writ Petition as well. He thus prays that both
Writ Petitions be allowed because, the amount
quantified against him by the 'Board' is
illegal, without any basis and that attempt of
recovery is time barred and impermissible under
Section 36 of the Kerala Head-load Workers Act,
1978.
3. The petitioner also has a case that if
the calculations are properly considered, no
amounts would be due from him because he had
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
remitted the contributions to the 'Board' as and
when payments were made to him by the 'SUPPLYCO'
and that if at all there had been any delay, it
was only on account of the factum of the latter
having not paid in time, thus incapacitating him
from making remittances within the statutory
time frame.
4. However, Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned
Standing Counsel for the Board, controverted the
afore submissions, arguing that, even if the
assertion that the 'SUPPLYCO' had delayed
payments is taken to be true, it would not come
to the aide of the petitioner because, once he
engaged the services of the head-load workers,
he was expected to make remittances within time
and without delay. He argued that, in addition
to the afore, when one examines Ext.P6 in
WP(C)No.8518/2023, it is not merely the damages
that have been demanded, but also actual
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
arrears; and therefore, that both these Writ
Petitions are without any merit.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader -
Smt.C.S.Sheeja, submitted that the official
respondents have only acted in terms of law in
issuing the notices impugned in
WP(C)No.17850/2023, based on the computation
made by the 'Board' - namely Ext.P6 in
WP(C)No.8518/2023. She submitted that,
therefore, no reliefs can be sought against the
official respondents, since they are only
discharging their official duties.
6. I have evaluated and considered the
afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the
various materials available on record.
7. It is without doubt, as is also
admitted, that Ext.P6 in WP(C)No.8518/2023 has
not been issued by the 'Board' after having
heard the petitioner. When the petitioner
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
asserts that the amounts therein do not reflect
the true affairs and that he had actually not
committed any default, thus making it
impermissible for any damages to have been
imposed against him, it was certainly incumbent
upon the 'Board' to have heard him also, after
having given him an opportunity through a
notice. This was the basic sine qua non of a
fair procedure, particularly when the petitioner
asserts before this Court that he has committed
no default.
8. Add to the afore, the further contention
of the petitioner - that, even if there had been
any delay, it was only on account of the factum
that the 'SUPPLYCO' had delayed payment to him
under the contract - perhaps it is not a ground
for a denial of liability, but may be one for
mitigation, which, of course, is for the 'Board'
to have considered in its proper perspective.
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
Here again, the petitioner ought to have been
given notice, so that he could have raised all
such defences within the ambit of the reliefs
that he can claim.
9. Viewed from such perspective, I am
certain that Ext.P6 in W.P(C)No.8518/2023 cannot
find the favour of this Court. I, however,
clarify that this Court has not adjudicated the
merits of the said order, but solely that it has
been issued without notice to the petitioner and
without giving him an opportunity to file
objections against it and to explain the demand.
10. In the afore circumstances, I am left
without any doubt that the matter must re-engage
the attention of the 'Board' appropriately,
after hearing the petitioner; subsequent to
which alone, can any action for recovery be
initiated against him.
Resultantly, these Writ Petitions are
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
ordered with the following directions:
(a) W.P(C)No.8518/2023 is allowed and Ext.P6
is quashed. The competent Authority of the
'Board' is directed to reconsider the matter,
after affording an opportunity of being heard to
the petitioner; thus culminating in an
appropriate order and necessary action thereon,
as expeditiously as is possible, but not later
than three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
(b) W.P(C)No.17850/2023 is allowed and
Exts.P7 and P8 are set aside; however,
clarifying that, subject to the exercise ordered
in (a) above, the Authorities will be at liberty
to initiate the recovery proceedings in terms of
law, following due procedure.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rr/akv
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17850/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
06.02.2021 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
SUPPLYCO
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF AN APPLICATION
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH
OTHER CONTRACTORS DATED NIL
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER ON 3.12.2019
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE SUPPLYCO ON
3.09.2020
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER ON 1.09.2021
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
21.2.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4THRESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
15.5.2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
23.5.2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
WP(C)Nos.8518 & 17850/2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8518/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
06.02.2021 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
THE SUPPLYCO
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF AN APPLICATION
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH
OTHER CONTRACTORS
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER ON 3.12.2019
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SUPPLYCO ON
3.09.2020
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER ON 1.09.2021
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
21.2.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4 TH
RESPONDENT
