Disposed

Joseph Leon v. Divisional Forest Officer Aqnd Another

Kerala HC19 Dec 2016WP(C)/13123/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Ernakulam, disposed of a writ petition by an auction purchaser of timber logs owing a departmental sum. Considering significant delay of over 20 years and ongoing litigation, the court directed the petitioner to remit the liability amount without interest within six weeks to attain ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to remit the amount mentioned in Ext.P1 without interest within six weeks of receipt of judgment.

Joseph Leon Vs Divisional Forest Officer Aqnd Another — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 13123 of 2009 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JOSEPH LEON, S/O. GREGORY, M/S GREGORY & SONS, OZHIKINASSERY, NAGARKOVIL, TAMILNADU, PIN 629 002.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILED LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SRI.M.P.PRAKASH,SPL.GP FOR FOREST

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 13123 of 2009 (I)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 08.01.99 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.1999 IN W.A.NO.2600/99. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2008 IN W.P.C.NO.22853/1999.

¶20

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19.11.2008 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE GOVERNMENT.

¶21

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN IDENTICAL CASE OF ONE MAJEED ON 03.10.97.

¶22

EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN “INDIAN EXPRESS” DATED 20.09.98.

¶23

EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT ON 11.03.2009.

¶24

EXT.P8: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 7.4.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶26

TRUE COPY

¶27

P.A TO JUDGE

¶28

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶29

¶30

W.P.C.No.13123 of 2009

¶31

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioner was an auction purchaser of timber logs and teak materials conducted by the Forest Department.

¶34

The controversy is that the petitioner did not remit the balance amount of sale consideration in time causing a reauction of the materials at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Petitioner was, therefore, sought to be burdened with the liability of the loss that has been already sustained by the Government. The liability against petitioner was quantified as per Ext.P1 order. The petitioner had challenged Ext.P1 order across the hierarchy of authorities which finally lead to Ext.P7 order to be issued by the Government of Kerala. The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 in this writ petition.

¶35

I have heard Mr.G.Hariharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Forest Department, Mr.Sandesh Raja.

¶36

I take notice of the fact that the auction was

¶37

W.P.C.No.13123/2009

¶38

¶39

conducted in the year 1996. I am also cognizant of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not make the balance payment not on account of any issue attributable to him but because he was notified of the confirmation of the sale much after the auction. Of course, these are all vehemently contested by the learned special Government Pleader and he says that it is solely because of the delay at the hand of the petitioner that the entire controversy has arisen.

¶40

Taking into account the fact that this is a matter that relates to the year 1996 and that over 20 years have elapsed, during which period the petitioner was litigating in one forum or the other, I am of the view that though he may not be able to get himself completely exonerated from the burden of having to make payment of the amount mentioned in Ext.P1, he certainly deserves some amount of lenience and latitude.

¶41

Therefore, taking into account the totality of circumstances and the extremely peculiar situation that the petitioner is placed, I think ends of justice would suffice if the petitioner remits the amount claimed in Ext.P1 without interest within a specified period.

¶42

W.P.C.No.13123/2009

¶43

¶44

In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition, directing the petitioner to remit the amount mentioned in Ext.P1 without any interest thereon, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say if this amount is not remitted in the manner directed above, he would lose the benefit of this judgment and all further consequences will follow, based on Ext.P1 confirmed by Ext.P7 order.

¶45

In the facts and circumstances of this case, I order no costs and the parties are directed to suffer the respective costs. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶48

TRUE COPY

¶49

P.A TO JUDGE

¶50

Joseph Leon v. Divisional Forest Officer Aqnd Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Leon v. Divisional Forest Officer Aqnd Another

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

Jijo Joseph Vs State of Kerala

T.R.Jayagopal Vs Institute of Human Resources Development

Gopakumar.T Vs State of Kerala and Others

Lijiya.M Vs Director, Kerala State Open School

Suseel.S Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

State of Kerala Vs N.K.Babu