Dismissed

C.Raby v. Director of Agriculture

Kerala HC10 Sept 2009WP(C)/10195/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking direction to disburse Rs. 8.75 lakhs claimed for purchasing and delivering organic manure and neem cakes under a government scheme. The Court observed that factual disputes regarding the actual delivery and stock records existed. It held that such factual adjudication is not permissible in a writ petition under Article 226 and dismissed the petition, leavi

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioners advised to pursue remedies under Article 226 via regular suit or arbitration as factual disputes regarding delivery and stock exist.

C.Raby Vs Director of Agriculture — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 10195 of 2007(L) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ------------------

¶7

1. RABY C., PRESIDENT, PONVILA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.985, AYIRA P.O., TRIVANDRUM.

¶8

2. PONVILA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.985, AYIRA P.O., TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM SRI.C.N.SIVANKUTTY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

-------------------

¶12

1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

2. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

3. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KARODE, AYIRA P.O., TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN FOR R.1TO3

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WPC NO.10195/07

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 10.11.2006. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.2.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.12 DT 24.2.2007. EXT.P4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.857 DT 5.3.2007. EXT.P4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.2467 DT 2.3.2007. EXT.P4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.2468 D 2.3.2007. EXT.P4(d): TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 2448 DT 28.2.2007. EXT.P4(e): TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 2447 DT 28.2.2007. EXT.P4(f): TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 2495 DT 6.3.2007. EXT.P4(g): TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 2533 DT 10.3.2007. EXT.P4(h): TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 2496 DT 6.3.2007 EXT.P4(i): TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.2491 DT 5.3.2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DT 2.3.2007. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WITH INVOICE DT 5.3.2007. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 12.3.2007. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.KCK.03/06-07 DT 21.3.2007. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KBK-03/2006-07 DT 21.3.2007. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRIBUTION LISTS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXTS. OF R1

¶22

EXT.R1(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SVC(2)/4251/2007 DT 19.3.2007.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10195 OF 2007 (L)

¶27

=====================

¶28

Dated this the 10^th day of September, 2009

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

First petitioner is the President of the second petitioner, a Co-operative Bank incorporated under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. In this writ petition, the prayer sought is to direct the respondents to disburse the amount due claimed by the petitioner under Ext.P6. According to the petitioner, for the implementation of the scheme, viz., Coconut Demonstration Plot, Puthiya Uchakkada Ward of Karode Grama Panchayat was chosen. Petitioners submit that as part of the implementation of the scheme, for supply of manure, an amount of Rs.8.75 lakhs was sanctioned by the 1^st respondent. In pursuance thereof, according to the petitioners, by Ext.P2, the 3^rd respondent required the petitioner to stock organic manure of 38.68 metric tons and 9.67 metric tons of neem cakes. It is stated that accordingly expending an amount of Rs.4,15,810/-, manure was stored and thereafter acting upon Ext.P5 permit issued by the 3^rd respondent, entire quantity was delivered to the Convener, who was in charge of the implementation of the scheme. Ext.P9 is the

¶31

WPC 10195/07

¶32

:2 :

¶33

information obtained by the petitioners under the Right to information Act, which also supports the case of the petitioners. However, when payment was claimed as per Ext.P6, petitioners were informed by Ext.P8 that the amount of Rs.8.75 lakhs sanctioned for the implementation of the scheme has been recalled, as a result of which, the petitioners did not get payment and therefore the writ petition was filed.

¶34

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. They are admitting the implementation of the scheme and that the area in question was chosen and that Ext.P2 was issued to the petitioners. However, in para 4 of the affidavit, it is stated that on verifying the stock register of the Bank, it was revealed that they had received 9670 kgs of neem cake and 38680 kgs of organic manure from the distributors on 5/3/2007 and 22/2/07 respectively and that the same was supplied to the Convener on 5/3/2007 itself. It is also stated that going by the stock register, the actual stock of organic manure available at the petitioner Bank as on 5/3/2007 was only 17000 kgs and the balance quantity of organic manure was received there only on 6/3/2007

¶35

WPC 10195/07

¶36

:3 :

¶37

and 10/3/2007. It is also stated that as per the records of the distributor of the organic manure, it was revealed that the organic manure was supplied during the period 28/2/2007 to 10/3/2007. It is also stated that the 1^st respondent had received complaints signed by 41 beneficiaries of the scheme alleging irregularities in the distribution of the manure, on the basis of which, as per Ext.R1(a), an enquiry was ordered. It is also stated that the 2^nd respondent received yet another complaint signed by 15 persons of the Panchayat alleging irregularities in the implementation of the scheme. Accordingly, detailed enquiry was conducted and irregularities were found out and it was therefore that the amount sanctioned was recalled.

¶38

Petitioners have filed a reply affidavit, where they have produced Ext.P10, the record maintained by the 3^rd respondent showing that manure was distributed to 189 beneficiaries through the scheme. On this basis, it is contended that the averments in the counter are incorrect and that amount should be disbursed to the Bank.

¶39

Evidently, this is a monetary claim raised by the

¶40

WPC 10195/07

¶41

:4 :

¶42

petitioners on the allegation that organic manure and neem cake was supplied acting upon Exts.P2 and P5 and expending more than Rs.4 lakhs belonging to the Bank.

¶43

From the counter affidavit, what is seen is that going by the claim raised by the petitioners, the neem cake and organic manure was distributed by the petitioner on 5/3/2007 and that going by the petitioners own records, as on 5/3/2007 their stock was only 17,000/- kgs of organic manure. The balance stock was received by the petitioner only on 6/3/2007 and 10/3/2007. Petitioners have no case of having distributed any quantity subsequent to 5/3/2007. If that be so, transaction as claimed by the petitioners is not free from doubt. In such circumstances, in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not be justified in directing the respondents to release payment to the petitioners as claimed by them. If the petitioners have to succeed, they will have to establish that they had in fact procured the materials and delivered the same to the Convener acting in pursuance to Exts.P2 and P5 as claimed by them. In my view, such an adjudication based on facts and records is possible

¶44

WPC 10195/07

¶45

:5 :

¶46

only in a regular suit or before an Arbitration Court as contemplated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and at any rate not in a proceedings under Article 226 where this Court can decide the issues only on the basis of facts.

¶47

Therefore, leaving open the contentions raised and leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the remedies for realising the dues, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶48

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶49

C.Raby v. Director of Agriculture

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Raby v. Director of Agriculture

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.a.Sunilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Manneera Malayora Karshaka Sangham Vs State of Kerala

Rajiv Nagar Residents' Welfare Assn. Vs Corporation of Cochin

Kalatharachira Padasekharam Rep.N/.M.Tho Vs Chellanam Grama Panchayath

K.G.Sebastian Vs State

Sujaya Kumari M.B Vs State of Kerala