Allowed

President, Kannur Building Materials (Marketing) Co-Operative Socieity v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jul 2012WP(C)/17406/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order rejecting his complaint regarding dredging rights allocated by a respondent authority. The court found the impugned order unsustainable as it neither addressed the petitioner's complaints nor complied with a previous direction to consider the matter. The order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P7 order set aside. First respondent directed to consider petitioner's representation afresh within three months with notice to parties.

President, Kannur Building Materials… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2012/3RD SRAVANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 17406 of 2012 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PRESIDENT, KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS (MARKETING) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITY LTD. NO C 1741, P.O, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR 670561

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) SRI.M.R.SABU SMT.APARNA RAJAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES & PORTS GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT

¶12

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶13

2. THE SENIOR PORT CONSERVATOR,, AZHEEKKAL PORT OFFICE, AZHEEKKAL P.O, AZHEEKODE KANNUR DISTRICT 670510

¶14

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS,

¶15

NEW CORPORATION BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033

¶16

BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 17406 of 2012 (A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT. P1	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 18-03-2010	APPROVING ORDER WITH NORMS
EXT. P2	TRUE COPY OF THE	GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 27-03-2010
EXT. P3	TRUE COPY OF THE	GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 24-04-2010
EXT. P4	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 30-04-2011	PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT. P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04-06-2011
EXT. P6	TRUE COPY OF THE WP(C) NO 31244/201	JUDGMENT DATED 24-11-2011 INN 1
EXT. P7	TRUE COPY OF THE	GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 21-02-2012

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL.

( true copy )

PA TO JUDGE.

Kvs/-

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶27

= = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.17406 of 2012.

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 25^th July, 2012.

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the first respondent. The petitioner is the President of a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The society had been given right to remove sand and silt from the limits of the Azheekal Port during the year 2010-2011. For the current year, the right of dredging of sand has been given to a number of societies after delimiting the areas from each of the societies. The petitioner has various complaints against the manner in which the right to remove sand has been given to various societies. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 representation to the first respondent highlighting the illegalities committed. When there was no action on Ext.P5, he had approached this Court and as per

¶32

WP(C).No.17406/2012.

¶33

¶34

Ext.P6, this Court has issued the following direction:

¶35

“Since notice on Ext.P5 has been served on the first respondent and as the complaint is regarding the alleged violation of Ext.P1 order, I direct the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 with notice to the parties concerned and as expeditiously as possible at any rate within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition.”

¶36

Pursuant to the above direction, the matter has been considered and Ext.P7 order has been issued rejecting the complaint of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 has not considered the various contentions raised in Ext.P5, nor has the first respondent complied with the direction of this Court in Ext.P6. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P7.

¶37

I have heard the learned Spl.Govt.Pleader Sri.D.Somasundaram also.

¶38

A reading of Ext.P7 does not offer any indication as to whether the contentions of the petitioner were

¶39

WP(C).No.17406/2012.

¶40

¶41

considered by the first respondent. It is to be noted from the direction in Ext.P6 extracted above that the complaint regarding violation of Ext.P1 order made in the said writ petition has been specifically referred to. However, no finding in this regard is available in Ext.P7. Though the reliefs sought for by the petitioner are mentioned in detail in Ext.P7, no finding of the first respondent on any of the said items is available. The petitioner is therefore justified in contending that the first respondent has not considered the complaint made by the petitioner in its proper perspective. Obviously, the first respondent has proceeded on the basis that, since there was an Original Suit pending, in which some of the issues are pending decision of the Civil Court, it was not proper to consider the complaint of the petitioner in detail. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the Original Suit does not concern any of the issues raised in Ext.P5 complaint.

¶42

In view of the fact that Ext.P7 has not considered

¶43

WP(C).No.17406/2012.

¶44

the various complaints raised in Ext.P5. Ext.P7 is unsustainable and the same is therefore set aside.

¶45

The first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner afresh, in the light of the direction contained in Ext.P6 judgment with notice to all concerned parties and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge)

¶47

Kvs/-

President, Kannur Building Materials (Marketing) Co-Operative Socieity v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

President, Kannur Building Materials (Marketing) Co-Operative Socieity v. State of Kerala

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.Manappully Vs T.K.Manoj Kumar, IAS

Gopinadhan N.V. Vs Sarvamadanan

N.P.Sukumaran Vs the Joint Registrar

K.Sabu Vs the State of Kerala

M.T.Abdulla Vs the Secretary

M.T.Joseph Vs State of Kerala