Disposed

T.C.Lathika Kumari v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC11 Oct 2011WP(C)/9086/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of a pending subsidy appeal within three months and stayed recovery of margin money pending the appeal outcome. The court ordered the petitioner to produce the judgment for compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to consider pending subsidy appeal within three months; stayed recovery of margin money proceedings; ordered petitioner to produce judgment for compliance.

T.C.Lathika Kumari Vs State of Kerala and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 9086 of 2010(I)

PETITIONER : -

T.C.LATHIKA KUMARI, SASTHA, PUTHENCHANTHA POST, VALLIKUNNAM, MAVELIKKARA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR STATE INVESTMENT SUBSIDE, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.GEORGE VADAKKEL.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 9086 of 2010(I)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS :-

¶20

EXT.P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER DATED 25-11-1997 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4^th RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-07-1998 BY THE 2^nd RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30-11-1999 IN O.P NO.9513 OF 1999. EXT.P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H.6097/2000 DATED 05-01-2001 BY THE 4^th RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF G.O[MS] NO.92/2000/ID DATED 11-07-2000. EXT.P6 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-03-2006 IN O.P NO.9365 OF 2001. EXT.P7 : A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BY THE PETITIONER DATED 02-05-2006 BEFORE THE 2^nd RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2^nd RESPONDENT DATED 25-01-2007. EXT.P9 : A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14-05-2008 BY THE 4^th RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES DATED 26-07-2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 04-08-2008 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25-10-2008. EXT.P13: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16-01-2010 DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE. EXT.P14: A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE AND THE ACCOMPANYING PAPERS BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P15: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10-02-2010 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P16: MARRIAGE INVITATION OF THE PETITIONER' DAUGHTER.

¶21

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

amk.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 9086 OF 2010

¶27

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2011

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Petitioner had established a small scale industrial unit

¶30

and had applied for sanction of Rs.4,25,240/- being the State Investment Subsidy. However, by Ext.P11 proceedings of the 4^th respondent, he was granted only a subsidy of Rs.42,524/-. Aggrieved by the above the petitioner filed Ext.P12 appeal before the 2^nd respondent. During the pendency of the appeal by Ext.P15 the petitioner was called upon to remit an amount of Rs.2,58,854/- towards the margin money along with the interest thereon. This proceeding was also issued by the 4^th respondent. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed complaining that during the pendency of the appeal for enhancement of State Investment Subsidy margine money paid was sought to be recovered.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 9086 OF 2010

¶32

:2 :

¶33

When the writ petition was admitted this court also passed interim order dated 18.3.2010 staying recovery and the order was later modified by requiring the petitioner to remit the amount of Rs.75,000/-. It is stated to have been complied with. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition the 2^nd respondent heard the petitioner on Ext.P12 appeal on 10.2.2010 and that orders on Ext.P12 appeal have not been passed or communicated so far. It is at that stage the writ petition comes up for final hearing.

¶34

I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. From the submissions made by the parties it is obvious that Ext.P12 appeal still remains pending before the 2^nd respondent. In that view, at this stage what is required is that the 2^nd respondent should consider the appeal with notice to the parties concerned and pass orders thereon as

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 9086 OF 2010

¶36

:3 :

¶37

expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also directed that in the meanwhile further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P15 will stand stayed. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

¶38

Needless to say that in case the appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed, it will be open to the respondents to adjust the amount, towards the amount payable under Ext.P15 and excess amount if any may be refunded or recovered from the petitioner as the situation warrants.

¶39

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶40

ul/[true copy]

¶41

P.S. to Judge

T.C.Lathika Kumari v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.C.Lathika Kumari v. State of Kerala and Others

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

M.v.Ramadasan Vs Joy Thomas

Biju Shamsudeen Kunju Vs Union of India and Another

Thrissur Grand Shopping Mall (P) Ltd. Vs the District Collector, Thrissur and

Sumesh Vs State of Kerala

Renju Alex Vs the Chief Forest Conservator, Kannur

Karthyayani Panickathiar Vs Conservator of Forest & Custodian of