Disposed

K.G.Sreenivasan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Oct 2013WP(C)/23541/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the right to lift sand from the dam site was not finalized without a public tender. It directed the respondent company to float a public tender for sand removal rights, ensuring participation by petitioners and treating past disqualification as non-bar.

What did the court decide?

directed respondent company to float a public tender for right to remove sand with wide publication

K.G.Sreenivasan Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/1ST KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 23541 of 2013 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.G.SREENIVASAN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.K.K.GOPALAN, KOZHAMPURATH HOUSE, PUDUKKAD VADAKKE THORAVU DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

------------1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001.

¶11

2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶12

3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NIRMALYAM, SREEKANDESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶13

4. CHAIRMAN, CORE COMMITTEE FOR DAM DE-SILTING OF MALAMPUZHA CHALIYAR, WALAYAR DAMS IN PALAKKAD (DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD), PIN-678001. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) R3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-10-2013, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.25033/2013 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 23541 of 2013 (P)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)30560/2011 DATED 10.06.2013 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.07.2013.

¶19

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING.

¶20

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 16.08.2013 SENT BY REGISTERED POST

¶21

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DTD.03.11.2012.

¶22

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 26.06.2013.

¶23

EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT HELD ON 26.12.2012.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶25

//TRUE COPY//

¶26

P.A TO JUDGE

¶27

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 23541 and 25033 of 2013

¶30

¶31

Dated, this the 23^rd day of October, 2013

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The issue involved in both these cases is similar and hence dealt with together.

¶34

The rights and liberties to excavate and remove sand from the dam site at Chulliyar was assigned jointly to the petitioners in both the cases and to another by name P.D. David. But by virtue of some labour problems, the entire quantity could not be lifted and in the said circumstances, the petitioners in both the cases together approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 30560 of 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext. P1 judgment [produced in W.P(C) No. 23541 of 2012] directing the respondent Company to consider the claim of the petitioners so as to enable them to lift the balance quantity as well, and thus to pass appropriate orders within the time as stipulated therein. Pursuant to Ext. P1, the petitioners therein jointly submitted Ext. P2 representation before the Managing Director of the respondent Company and a meeting was convened by the District Collector, leading to Ext. P3 minutes in the meeting held on 24.08.2013, so as to have the grievance redressed. Some other

¶35

W.P.(C) Nos. 23541 and 25033 of 2013

¶36

: 2 :

¶37

proceedings are also referred to, with regard to the sequence of events as mentioned in the writ petitions.

¶38

The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23541 of 2013 is that the said petitioner was simply sidelined and that the proceedings have not been taken to a logical conclusion with regard to the sand removal and hence the writ petition, seeking for a direction to be given to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue sand removal work at Chulliyar Dam site in the light of Exhibits P5, P6 and P7. Coming to the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 25033 of 2013, it is pointed out that, pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 30560 of 2011, further steps were taken, whereby all the three petitioners therein were permitted to lift the balance sand from the dam site. In the course of further proceedings, with regard to the subsequent cause of action to have sand removed, Ext. P1 agreement dated 05.08.2013 was executed between the respondent Company and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 25033 of 2013, fixing the terms and conditions. By virtue of the said agreement, the petitioner was required to satisfy a sum of Rs. 6,28,900/- towards advance extent of 5 % of the total amount and to satisfy such other requirements. However, no time limit was specified therein, as a result of which,

¶39

W.P.(C) Nos. 23541 and 25033 of 2013

¶40

: 3 :

¶41

no further proceedings were taken. This made the said petitioner to submit Ext. P2 representation seeking for completion of course and events and to give effect to the agreement for enabling the petitioner to lift the sand. Thereafter the said petitioner was served with Ext. P3 notice, stating that, there was default on the part of the petitioner in satisfying the amount covered by Ext. P1 and hence that the said agreement cannot be given effect to. This made the petitioner in W. P(C) No. 25033 of 2013 to approach this Court.

¶42

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the original cause of action, which forms the subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 30560 of 2011 is no more in existence. The issue with regard to the subsequent cause of action, as to the rights and liberties of the concerned person to lift the sand from the concerned dam site and the alleged non-satisfaction of the amount, pursuant to execution of Ext. P1 agreement in W.P.(C) 25033 of 2013, or the issue as to the course and events as mentioned in other writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 23541 of 2013] is still to be finalized. The right to lift the sand from dam site has not been finalized on the basis of any tender, after giving opportunity to the public, who are desirous of participating in the same. The

¶43

W.P.(C) Nos. 23541 and 25033 of 2013

¶44

: 4 :

¶45

respondent Company being a public sector undertaking, it is very much essential to have transparency in the proceedings.

¶46

In the said circumstances, the respondent Company is directed to float a public tender with regard to the right to remove sand showing all the particulars as to the quantity, minimum rate etc. by effecting wide publication in some leading daily having wide circulation. It is open for the petitioners herein to participate in the tender as and when notified and the same shall be finalized in accordance with law. It is made clear that the disqualification of the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 25033 of 2013 with reference to nonsatisfaction of the amount shown in Ext. P1 agreement shall not be a bar to the said petitioner in participating in the tender to be floated by the respondent Company as above. If at all any amount has been remitted by the petitioners pursuant to the proceedings referred to in the writ petitions, it shall be subject to the further proceedings in connection with the tender to be floated.

¶47

Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶50

kmd

K.G.Sreenivasan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.Sreenivasan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thankamani Vs K.v.Jose

M.Padmanabhan Namboothiri Vs P.Purushothaman

Sachin Keshavan Vs the Regional Officer

Kohinoor Saleem Vs Cbse, Chennai

S.Anil Ganesh Vs the Village Officer, Muttathara

Raghavan Vs Village Officer, Thripunithura