Remanded

A. Ansari v. District Collector

Kerala HC6 Jun 2014WP(C)/8240/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning the regularization of tree cutting under a disputed tender, the Court held that contractual issues regarding the legal heirs' rights require examination by the awarding authority. The petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent for appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation to 3rd respondent for appropriate order within two weeks on contractual and tender issues.

A. Ansari Vs District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/16TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 8240 of 2014 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. A. ANSARI, VILAYIL VEEDU, NEDUMAN P.O., EZHAMKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶8

2. ANITHA S., SUBIN NILAYAM, MENAPPARA KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

3. SUBIN S, SUBIN NILAYAM, MENAPPARA KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶13

2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ROADS DIVISION, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶14

3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶15

4. VILLAGE OFFICER, ENADIMANGALAM.

¶16

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K C VINCENT

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 8240 of 2014 (D)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PERMITTING SRI.SURENDRA BABU TO CUT AND REMOVE THE TREES.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER GIVEN BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AUTHORIZING THE IST PETITIONER TO CUT AND REMOVE THE TREES WHICH SRI.LATE SURENDRA BABU BID IN AUCTION.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 19.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.2.2014 SENT BY THE IST PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

LSN

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.8240 of 2014

¶33

Dated this the 6^th day of June 2014

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

1^st petitioner is the person who had obtained consent from petitioners 2 and 3 for cutting and removing timber which is permitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Road Sub Division, Adoor, Pathanamthitta in terms of Ext.P1 order dated 23/05/2013. Apparently, Ext.P1 order is issued in favour of late Sri.Surendra Babu and according to the petitioners, petitioners 2 and 3 are the legal heirs of Sri.Surendra Babu. They have, in turn, issued a consent letter to the 1^st petitioner for cutting and removing timber in terms of Ext.P1. According to the petitioners, two trees were already cut and removed, but by an order dated 19/02/2014 as Ext.P3, the 1^st petitioner was restrained from cutting and removing any trees and a stop memo has been issued. First petitioner had submitted Exts.P4, P5 and P6 to the authorities concerned inter alia stating that he has got a

¶36

W.P.C.No.8240/2014

¶37

¶38

valid consent letter from the legal heirs of deceased Surendra Babu.

¶39

Perusal of Ext.P1 does indicate that the order is issued in favour of late Sri.Surendra Babu. Apparently, this was an auction conducted by the PWD department and therefore the rules of auction will definitely apply. Whether the legal heirs of the tenderer will be entitled to the right under the tender and whether they can give necessary consent to another person to comply with the terms of the contract are matters relating to the contractual provisions which requires to be considered by the appropriate authority, that is the awarder of the work.

¶40

Under these circumstances, unless the entire contractual provisions under which the tender is awarded in favour of Sri.Surendra Babu is verified, a decision cannot be arrived at. Hence, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of relegating the petitioners to approach the awarder of the work to take a decision in the matter.

¶41

W.P.C.No.8240/2014

¶42

¶43

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall submit necessary representation to the 3^rd respondent who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the contractual issues involved in the matter. This may be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

(sd/-)

¶45

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶46

jsr

A. Ansari v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Ansari v. District Collector

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.M.Ali Vs Land Revenue Commissioner

Smt.Retnamma Vs the Union of India

Raghavan Vs the Village Officer

Ali Muhammed Vs the District Geologist

Mohammed Ansar Vs the District Collector

Rajesh Vs Thekkumkara Gramapanchayath