Allowed

Gopinadhan Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2013WP(C)/25129/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in an original jurisdiction writ petition, examined the delay in disbursing a state industrial subsidy. The petitioner's industry had closed shortly after sanctioning but within a year of request. Despite arguments about the industry's closure, the Court directed the release of the sanctioned amount to the legal heir.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release Rs. 22,200/- subsidy with 18% p.a. interest to the impleaded legal heir within one month.

Gopinadhan Nair Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/25TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 25129 of 2006 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. GOPINADHAN NAIR, RAJI COFFEE WORKS, KOTHANALLOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 632.

¶8

ADDL. 2ND PETITIONER IMPLEADED

¶9

2. SMT.P.C. KAMALADEVI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, NAMATTATHIL HOUSE, KOTHANALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 2ND PETITIONER AS PER THE ORDER DATED 03/10/2007 IN I.A.12864/2007.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

2. THE DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.MAYA.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).No. 25129 of 2006 (N)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER NO.2/03-04/815 DATED 15/09/2003.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 14/10/2003.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE ABOVE PROCEEDINGS DIC NO.C2/5020/03 DATED 17/03/2006.

¶22

EXT.P4	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/05/2006 SUBMITTED
	BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.

¶23

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/08/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶25

EXT.R1A	COPY OF THE RELEVANT LETTER NO.A/207/06 DATED 09/05/2006 OF THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT INDUSTRIES OFFICER.
EXT.R1B	COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER DATED 15/05/2006.
EXT.R1C	COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 17/03/2006.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

B.P.RAY, J

WP(C)No.25129 of 2006 ......................................... Dated 14^th February, 2013

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The prayer in the writ petition is as follows.

¶33

“i) to call for the entire records of the petitioner's case and action taken in pursuance of Ext.P4 and P5 representations;

¶34

ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.22,200/- as subsidy with interest at market rate at 18% per annum;

¶35

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to effect payment of Rs.22,200/- as subsidy to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% per annum;

¶36

iv) to direct the respondents to act according to law;

¶37

v) issue such other order or orders which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

¶38

Wpc 25129/2006

¶39

¶40

By order dated 17.3.2006, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kottayam passed the following order.

¶41

“In the circumstances stated above sanction is hereby accorded to drawn and disburse an amount of Rs.22,200/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand and two hundred only) to the unit by way of DD payable to the unit directly.

¶42

The expenditure will be met from the current year's budget provision under the Head of Account 2851-100-102-84 (Plan)

¶43

The Administrative Assistant of this office is authorised to draw and disburse the amount by way of DD to the unit as above ordered”.

¶44

According to the learned counsel, even though the

¶45

amount was sanctioned it has not been released. Later, on the death of the petitioner, the industry was closed and the legal heir of the petitioner has been impleaded in this case.

¶46

Learned Government Pleader submits that the industry has been closed and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The Assistant District Industries officer reported

¶47

Wpc 25129/2006

¶48

¶49

that on local enquiry, it is understood that the Unit has stopped production a few years back and the shed is used for keeping firewood and the entire machinery was taken away. As the Unit was not working, the first respondent was not in a position to release the amount sanctioned to the petitioner as per Rules and the amount was refunded to the government account. As per rules, State Investment Subsidy can be disbursed to the units working at the time of disbursement of State Investment Subsidy amount. Subsidy is to be paid on he policy of the Government when the industry was functioning. Subsidy was sanctioned while the industry was functioning. It is due to the inaction on the part of the authorities, the subsidy was not released. When the amount was not paid in spite of its sanction dated 17.3.2006, the petitioner has approached this court. Therefore I direct the respondents to release the subsidy amount to the legal heir of the petitioner, who is impleaded herein as additional second petitioner, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

Wpc 25129/2006

¶51

¶52

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶53

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶54

lgk

Gopinadhan Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinadhan Nair 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

The Manager & Another Vs Manager, Al-Falah Women'S Islamic

Babu Ommen Vs the Asst. P.F.Commissioner, Trivandrum

A.Sainulabdeen Vs the State of Kerala

Leena Vs the State of Kerala

Nehru College of Engineering Vs State of Kerala

M.Rohini Vs the Labour Court, Kannur