Allowed

K.M.Abdul Salam Haji v. the Secretary to Govt. & Others

Kerala HC4 Oct 2016WP(C)/8611/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged recovery proceedings initiated against him regarding alleged losses during his service as a Block Panchayat member. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the recovery order due to lack of statutory authority and failure to issue notice to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P1 and P2 (recovery proceedings) set aside as against the petitioner.

K.M.Abdul Salam Haji Vs the Secretary… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/12TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 8611 of 2009 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.M.ABDUL SALAM HAJI, S/O.LATE AHAMMED KUTTY, KOORIMANNIL MELEMANNIL HOUSE, P.O., PERIMBALAM, VIA.MUNDUPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE SECRETARY, BLOCK PANCHAYATH MALAPPURAM.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINEETHA HARIRAJ

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 8611 of 2009 (V)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT. P1	: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.11.2008 ISSUED
	BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT. P2	: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.1.2009 ISSUED BY THE
	3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

K. Vinod Chandran, J

W.P(C) No.8611 of 2009-V

¶27

¶28

Dated this the 04^th day of October, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner, a member of the Block Panchayat during the period 1997-98, is aggrieved with the recovery proceedings initiated at Exhibit P1. The contention of the petitioner is that the Panchayat, during the said period, had conducted a Computer Centre with the funds made available by the Rural Development Department.

¶31

The Industries Extension Officer and the Secretary of the Block Panchayat were said to be managing the affairs of the Computer Centre along with the President of the Block Panchayat. The management was subsequently entrusted with a Committee, constituted by participating local public, and the petitioner was also one of the Committee members. On the ground of an allegation of loss having been caused, a vigilance complaint was raised. The Vigilance Department is said to have initiated proceedings, based on which an amount of Rs.2,50,481.10 was directed to be recovered by

¶32

the Rural Development Commissioner by Exhibit P1 from 8 [eight] persons, including the petitioner herein.

¶33

WP(C) No.8611 of 2009 - 2 -

¶34

The Government has filed a detailed counter affidavit.

¶35

However, nothing is stated as to any notice having been issued to the petitioner by the Vigilance Department or by the Rural Development Commissioner before the order of recovery was issued. Merely based on a report of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau the recovery was directed; which is to be found without authority. The counter affidavit also does not speak of any statutory or other authority conferred on the Rural Development Commissioner to initiate such proceedings and order recovery.

¶36

For all the above reasons, the writ petition has to be

¶37

allowed by setting aside Exhibits P1 and P2 as against the petitioner. Writ petition allowed. No costs.

¶38

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶39

vku/-

¶40

[ true copy ]

K.M.Abdul Salam Haji v. the Secretary to Govt. & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Abdul Salam Haji v. the Secretary to Govt. & 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

P.Gopalakrishnan Vs Kerala Distelleries, Rep. by G.M. and

E.J.Joseph Vs Vechoochira Grama Panchayath

Padmalochanan. C.G Vs Sukumaran

K.Vasudevan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Rani Abey Varghese and Another Vs Vattiyoorkavu Grama Panchayat, Rep. by

C.v.Babu Vs Kalamassery Municipality