Disposed

E.P.Syamala v. the Secretary

Kerala HC1 Jun 2011WP(C)/9481/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of audit records and an audit of stock. Granting liberty, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the first respondent for a representation, which must be heard by the higher authority within two weeks with an opportunity to be heard to both sides.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file representation to the first respondent; directed to be considered by the concerned respondent with opportunity of hearing within two weeks.

E.P.Syamala Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 9481 of 2011(I)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

E.P.SYAMALA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.LAKSHMI AMMA, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, KANDOTH DESOM, VELLOOR AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA

RESPONDENTS:

THE SECRETARY, KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR, PAYYANNUR KHADI CENTRE, PAYYANNUR-670307.

¶16

THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH, SC, KERALA KHADI BOARD

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶20

W.P.(C)No. 9481 OF 2011

¶21

Dated this the 1^st June, 2011

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

¶24

following prayers:

¶25

“i) to call for the records leading to Ext. P25 and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order.

¶26

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing the second respondent to conduct an audit with respect to the sale in the petitioners agency through an officer to be deputed by him and thereafter take the stock of the materials in the shop before 31.03.2011 and also pay the petitioner the commission due to her and also accept the monthly rebate statement.

¶27

iii) to grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the cas e.”

¶28

When the matter came up for consideration on

¶29

25.03.2011, the following interim order was passed.

¶30

“ Not admitted. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and

¶31

W.P.(C)No. 9481 OF 2011

¶32

¶33

the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. In view of the submissions made, it is directed that it will be open to the respondents to depute their auditors to the petitioner's agency shop on 28.03.2011 for conducting audit of the stock.

¶34

Post on 30.03.2011.”

¶35

During the course of the proceedings I.A.No. 6422 of 2011 was filed by the concerned respondent pointing out that the direction already given by this Court as per Ext.P22 has not been complied with and that the writ petitioner might be directed to surrender the stock.

¶36

The Writ Petition is listed for today along with I.A. No. 8127 of 2011, pointing out that during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, Ext. P33 (produced along with the above I.A.) communication No.2672/M/88 dated 26.05.2011 has been issued by the Director, asking the petitioner to surrender the stock ( stated as issued as per the direction of the Secretary as mentioned in the said document), which is sought to be stayed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has actually complied with the direction given by this

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C)No. 9481 OF 2011

¶39

Court in Ext. P22, which aspect is vehemently disputed from the part of the respondents .

¶40

However, in view of the submission made from the part of the petitioner that, if liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the first respondent, simultaneously directing the first respondent ( who is the next higher authority in the hierarchy) to consider the matter, the petitioner would be satisfied and no further orders will be pressed for or warranted, this Court finds that, the petitioner could be relegated to avail the remedy, as aforesaid. If any representation is filed by the petitioner with regard to the grievances as projected in the writ petition, within two weeks, the same shall be considered by the concerned respondent and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the sides, as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶43

E.P.Syamala v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.P.Syamala v. the Secretary

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

Thomas Kurian Vs Syndicate Bank

Budha Ambedkar Samithi Vs State of Kerala

Jai Jawan Ex-Servicemen Vs Director General of Re-Settlement

Jaya Ashok Kumar Vs Manager,Iob & Another

Mrs.Heln Britto Vs the Banking Ombudsman

T.K.Chamikutty Vs the District Collector, Palakkad