Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala Rep. By The Secretary vs C.A. Sahir on 8 July, 2025
2025:KER:49651
W.A No.1862 of 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1862 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.06.2022 IN WP(C)
NO.18096 OF 2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
MALAPPURAM.
5 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER
TIRUR, PIN - 676101
BY SRI.SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVT.PLEADER
2025:KER:49651
W.A No.1862 of 2022
2
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WP(C):
C.A. SAHIR
S/O LIBRAHIM, DRIVER, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, TIRUR,
PIN - 676101
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
SHRI.K.P.SUDHEER
SMT.ANJALI MENON
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2025, THE COURT 08.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49651
W.A No.1862 of 2022
3
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated
16.06.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.18096 of 2012 whereby the
learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by setting aside
Ext.P4 dated 29.02.2012 being unsustainable, illegal and
arbitrary.
2. The appellants herein are the respondents in the writ
petition and the respondent is the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the
respondent/petitioner, while working as the Driver in the office of
the District Supply Officer, Malappuram in the year 2004, while
driving the official vehicle, met with an accident with an
autorickshaw and the passenger sustained injuries. OP(MV)
No.284 of 2005 was filed by the passenger before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The learned Tribunal passed
an Award of Rs.71,077/- along with 7% interest with effect from
2025:KER:49651
W.A No.1862 of 2022
01.01.2005 till the date of payment. The Tribunal held that the
respondent/petitioner who was driving the official vehicle was
rash and negligent in causing the accident and therefore, held
primarily liable. The owner of the vehicle is the District Supply
Officer, Malappuram who was also held vicariously liable. The
vehicle was not having valid insurance at the time of accident.
Therefore, the driver and the owner were made jointly and
severally liable for paying the compensation.
4. The Government, as per Ext.P2 order, deposited the
entire amount from the State Exchequer. Thereafter, recovery
was ordered equally from the persons concerned i.e. the driver
and the owner. The 50% amount comes to Rs.53,743/-. In a
separate case, CC No. 686 of 2004, registered before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, was decided by
judgment dated 12.06.2009, and the respondent/petitioner was
found guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay fine.
Thereafter, the Government, as per letter dated 25.01.2012,
initiated action to recover half of the amount from the
2025:KER:49651
W.A No.1862 of 2022
respondent/petitioner and the remaining half from the District
Supply Officer, Malappuram. Since the respondent/petitioner
retired from service, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated
against him to recover the same. Being aggrieved, the
respondent/petitioner had preferred the writ petition. The writ
petition was allowed on the ground that the Government cannot
recover the amount from the respondent/petitioner so far as there
is no direction to that effect or liberty granted by the MACT. Being
aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is against the
principles of law and hence liable to be set aside. Learned Single
Judge failed to consider the fact that the respondent was found
guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay fine for rash
and negligent driving. Learned Single Judge also failed to
consider the fact that since the accident took place, because of
rash and negligent driving of the respondent/petitioner, he was
liable to pay the amount and therefore, the recovery was ordered.
2025:KER:49651
W.A No.1862 of 2022
He further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have
considered that it was the responsibility of the
respondent/petitioner being a responsible Government servant, to
see that the vehicle has got all valid and updated records as
mandated by law. The respondent/petitioner was negligent in
keeping the insurance of the vehicle valid and updated and also
drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. Therefore, the
Government is entitled to recover the loss from him. In the
present case, the respondent has caused loss to the Government
due to his own fault, and the Government has every right to
recover the same. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment passed
by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/petitioner, vehemently opposed the prayer and
submitted that the respondent was discharging his official duties
when he met with the accident. MACT, at no point of time, had
stated that the driver of the vehicle would be responsible to make
the payment. The liability was fixed jointly and severally. There
2025:KER:49651
W.A No.1862 of 2022
was no direction by the MACT to pay and recover the amount
from the employee. It was not the duty of the respondent to get
the vehicle insured, but the same was the duty of the
custodian/concerned officer to have the vehicle insured. Even the
order of recovery could not have been passed at the back of the
respondent. There should have been a proper enquiry and hearing
granted to the respondent, since the award of the MACT cannot
be interpreted to the suitability of the authority. In view of the
aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ
petition. Therefore, no interference is necessary in the present
appeal. The writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the
fact that there was no direction to recover the amount from the
respondent who was arrayed as one of the respondents before the
MACT. Once the award of the MACT has been satisfied, the 3rd
appellant herein could not have ordered for recovery of the
amount, that too, at the back of the respondent, and as such, the
2025:KER:49651
W.A No.1862 of 2022
order tantamounts to over-reaching the order of the MACT.
Moreover, the District Supply Officer was directed to deposit the
amount within one month, and the insurance company was
exonerated. Learned Single Judge has rightly come to the
conclusion that it was the responsibility of the officer concerned to
get the vehicle insured. In any case, the respondent is not liable
to get the insurance renewed. In such a situation, the learned
Single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition.
The writ appeal, being bereft of merit and substance, is
hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp
