Allowed

Stanly John v. Valsala Rajan

Kerala HC23 Feb 2016WA/740/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ appeal against an interim order in a writ petition concerning the seizure of a vehicle. The Court held that imposing heavy costs and disciplinary directions on the appellant (a police officer) without personal impleading, notice, or a chance to defend was unwarranted and struck down the order.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was allowed; the order dated 09.04.2010 in W.P.(C) No.33049 of 2005 was set aside; parties to appear before the Single Judge for further directions.

Stanly John Vs Valsala Rajan — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/4TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶7

WA.No. 740 of 2010 ( )

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 33049/2005 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09-04-2010

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶10

STANLY JOHN, FORMER SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA, NOW WORKING AS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU

¶12

SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶13

SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶15

VALSALA RAJAN DECENT JUNCTION, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM.

¶16

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶17

M/S.MANOJ FINANCIERS NO.12, ARULATHAN STREET, SOWNARPET, CHENNAI-600 079.

¶18

KRISHNA AUTO CONSULTANT AND FINANCIERS AGENT, OPP: E.S.K. AUDITORIUM, PALLIMUKKU KOLLAM-691 010.

¶19

AJITH ALIAS UNNI, SREE VINAYAKA AUTO CONSULTANT, NEAR MANNIL HOSPITAL TVM ROAD, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI R2 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. GIRIJA GOPAL R3,R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN R3,R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

sou.

¶23

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶24

W.A. No.740 of 2010

¶25

Dated this the 23^rd day of February 2016

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Shaffique, J.

¶28

This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 9.4.2010 in W.P.(C) No.33049 of 2005. This order had been passed against the appellant, who was not a party to the proceedings. In fact, the learned Single Judge had passed an earlier order dated 5.1.2006, wherein it was observed as under :-

¶29

”Admit. Issue notice. In view of the statement in Exhibit R2(a), it would appear that a representation of the financier was forwarded by the 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent and on the basis of it, the 2^nd respondent seized the vehicle and kept in the police station. Later, it appears, the same has been released to the financier. Prima facie, it would show that the 2^nd respondent S.I. of Police has acted as the seizing agent of the financier. So, I propose to award heavy costs on him and direct the competent authority to take disciplinary action against him. So, the 2^nd respondent shall show cause why such an order should not be passed. Send a copy of the order to the 2^nd respondent directly.”

¶30

Pursuant to the said order, the Sub Inspector of Police appeared before this Court and the learned Single Judge observed

¶31

W.A. No.740 of 2010

¶32

-: 2 :-

¶33

that the appellant was acting merely as a stooge of the financier. Since the value of the vehicle involved is around 3,08,000/-, a direction was issued to the appellant to deposit an amount of 4 lakhs in a suspense account with the treasury from his personal pocket and thereafter report to this Court. Further directions were also issued, by which, the Appointing Authority was directed to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. Reference was also made to the interim orders dated 28.11.2005, 2.12.2005, 5.1.2006 and 30.1.2010. It was also observed that until deposit as aforesaid is made, no amounts towards salary, D.A. or any other allowance or benefits, including retiral benefits shall be paid to the officer.

¶34

Impugning the aforesaid order, this appeal has been filed inter alia contending that the appellant was not a party to the proceedings. This is an instance, where this Court had imposed a large amount as liability on the appellant, on the basis that the appellant was acting in favour of the financier.

¶35

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that after his transfer from Sasthamcotta Police Station, the appellant had no knowledge about the proceedings and also due to communication gap, the appellant could not

¶36

W.A. No.740 of 2010

¶37

-: 3 :-

¶38

pursue the proceedings. It is stated that he had not committed any negligence or laches in the matter. He was only impleaded in his official capacity and not in his personal capacity and therefore, imposition of such a huge amount on him and directing disciplinary action to be taken against him were totally uncalled for.

¶39

We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶40

In fact the writ petition has been filed by the first

¶41

respondent herein, seeking for the following reliefs :-

¶42

“(i) to declare the seizure effected by the 2^nd respondent as illegal and without jurisdiction;

¶43

(ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents, to for bear from taking any steps in respect of the vehicle,pursuant to seizure, and to ensure safe custody of the vehicle so as to enable the petitioner to get release of vehicle on payment of `50,000/- and to clear the balance loan amount and close the entire loan transaction under Hire Purchase Agreement with R3 within a period of two months.”

¶44

The 2^nd respondent is the Sub Inspector of Police and he has been asked to appear before the Court, by virtue of the orders as aforesaid. But, without considering the entire case on merits and without disposing of the writ petition, the impugned order had been passed as an interim arrangement.

¶45

W.A. No.740 of 2010

¶46

-: 4 :-

¶47

This procedure, according to us, is not justified. If at all any directions were to be issued, the appellant ought to have been personally impleaded in the matter and he should be given notice regarding the methodology to be adopted by the Court in this regard. It is apparent that he was not given any opportunity to defend the matter in his personal capacity. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order was unwarranted, since no such relief was claimed in the writ petition.

¶48

In the said circumstances, this writ appeal is allowed. We set aside the order dated 9.4.2010 passed in the writ petition. The parties shall appear before the learned Single Judge for further directions in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge shall be free to decide the matter, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above.

¶49

Sd/ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE

¶50

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE J UDGE

¶51

Jvt/24.2.2016.

Stanly John v. Valsala Rajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stanly John v. Valsala Rajan

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

Jathavedan Namboothiri Vs Rajalakshmi

The Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram Vs Smt.Sobhana Kumari S.

National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs John K.O.

Deputy Tahasildar (Rr) Vs M.a.Vijayanathan Pillai

The Custodian of Vested Forests Vs Jaise Jacob

V.K.Ramachandran Nair Vs Mrs.v.K.Radhamani Amma and Others