Allowed

A.K.Neelakandan v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC2 Dec 2014WP(C)/9082/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged coercive proceedings under the RR Act regarding alleged dues to the Panchayath. Court found liability if any shared by all seven committee members. Noted procedural gap regarding other members and that interim payment condition was met, setting aside proceedings against petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings set aside against petitioner; interim order dated 14/07/2011 made absolute; respondents may proceed against other members.

A.K.Neelakandan Vs State of Kerala and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).NO. 9082 OF 2011 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

A.K. NEELAKANDAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN, AVUNJIKKADAN HOUSE, PADAPPARAMA, CHERUR, KANNAMANGALAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR, SMT.V.SHYLAJA.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶11

2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, THIROORANGADI, MALAPPURAM-676 306.

¶12

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM-676 318.

¶13

4. THE SECRETARY,

¶14

DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.V. LONACHAN. R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).NO. 9082 OF 2011 (I)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE SEVEN PERSONS AND 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 02/03/2007.

¶22

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ESTIMATE OF THE WORK.

¶23

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 31/01/2011.

¶24

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶30

= = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.9082 of 2011

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2014

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved of the coercive proceedings taken under the RR Act, for realisation of the amount allegedly due in connection with the loss stated as sustained to the fourth respondent Panchayath.

¶35

The sequence of the events narrated in the writ petition shows that the petitioner and six others were selected as members of the beneficiary committee of soil conservation of Padapparambu scheduled caste colony in Kannamangalam Gramapanchayath in Malappuram district. The petitioner was selected as the convenor of the beneficiary committee and work was assigned by the fourth respondent. Ext.P1 agreement was executed between the members of the committee and the fourth respondent on 2.3.2007. Ext.P2 is the work estimate. It is stated that, because of various reasons, which according to the petitioner are not attributable to the petitioner, the work could not be completed and the factual position was brought to the notice of the authorities concerned then and there, but no

¶36

¶37

¶38

positive action was taken. The materials collected were lying on the premises which slowly vanished, because of theft and natural calamities. On a fine morning, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 demand notice under the RR Act, seeking to realise a sum of 78,234/- with such other charges, which made the₹ petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶39

Despite completion of service of notice on admission, the fourth respondent has not chosen to file any counter affidavit so far. Of course, a counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, which only seeks to justify the course of action pursued by them based on the requisition made by the concerned requisitioning authority. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court earlier, it was brought to the notice of this Court that, even going by the contents of Ext.P1 agreement, it was clearly stipulated that the liability, if any, should be upon all the seven members of the committee, despite which coercive steps have been pursued only against the petitioner which was quite arbitrary and an instance of discrimination. In the above circumstance, an interim order dated 14/7/2011 was passed by this Court, extending the earlier interim order, directing the petitioner to satisfy an amount of ₹ 13,000/- within two weeks , simultaneously making it clear that, in the meanwhile, the respondents shall proceed against the

¶40

¶41

¶42

other members of the beneficiary committee as well. Even though, a counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent on 23.12.2011, i.e., after passing the said interim order in July, nothing is stated with regard to the course and proceedings, if any, against the other members of the beneficiary committee. The fourth respondent is also remaining silent for the past several years and has not filed any counter affidavit so far.

¶43

In the said circumstance, this Court finds that no further proceedings are liable to be pursued against the petitioner in respect of the alleged liability, if any, more so when, the condition imposed by this Court is stated as already satisfied by effecting payment of a sum of 13,000/-. Accordingly, the₹ impugned proceedings stand set aside as against the petitioner herein. However, it is made clear that the respondents are free to proceed with further steps against the others concerned, in terms of the interim order dated 14.07.2011, if the same is sustainable in accordance with law. The said interim order is made absolute.

¶44

The writ petition stands allowed to the said extent. No costs.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ,

¶47

JUDGE.

¶48

stu

A.K.Neelakandan v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K.Neelakandan v. State of Kerala and Others

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

V.P.Kishore Vs Shajahan

Majeeja M.Nair Vs Dr.S.Raveendran

Johny Kurien Vs Mananthavady Grama Panchayath

Haridas Vs K.P.Antony

P.T.Chandukutty Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M. Abdul Azeez Vs District Collector