Dismissed

K.Mohanan v. Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.

Kerala HC21 Jun 2017RP/474/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a review petition seeking relaxation of an earlier judgment regarding recovery of excess amounts. The court clarified that recovery actions must adhere to a specific Government Order (Ext.P18/Ext.P10) to ensure due procedure, deciding against formal admission of the review.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; clarified that recovery of excess amounts requires adhering to Ext.P18 Government Order.

K.Mohanan Vs Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2017/31ST JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 474 of 2017 () IN WP(C).18145/2012

¶6

WP(C) 18145/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA ==========

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. K.MOHANAN, ASSISTANT MILK PROCUREMENT OFFICER (AMPO)

¶9

PATHANAMTHITTA DIARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.

¶10

RESIDING AT THEKKEYIL, CHATHAKULAM P.O. PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690520

¶11

2. SANTHOSHKUMAR, ASSISTANT MILK PROCUREMENT OFFICER (AMPO)

¶12

KOLLAM DIARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.

¶13

RESIDING AT 'DWARAKA', SOORANADU P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT-690522

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. (MILMA), MILMA BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004

¶17

2. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004 REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶18

3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶19

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004

¶20

BY ADV.SMT.LATHA ANAND,SC BY ADV.SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶24

¶25

R.P.No.474 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.18145 of 2012

¶26

- - - - Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2017

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The writ petitioners have filed this review petition seeking that the judgment of this Court dated 30.03.2017 be reviewed since, according to them, the judgment had committed to taken into account the claims of the 2^nd writ petitioner. The petitioners say that the interim order referred to by me in the above judgment was only with respect to the 1^st petitioner and that the claim to the 2^nd petitioner had not be touched upon in any manner in the said interim order. They, therefore, assert that by confirming the interim order only the claim to the 1^st petitioner was taken into account and not that of the 2^nd petitioner.

¶29

I heard Sri.B.Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Latha Anand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶30

In my judgment dated 30.03.2017, I confirmed the

¶31

R.P.No.474 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.18145 of 2012

¶32

¶33

interim order of this Court dated 29.05.2014 and I clarify that any action to recover any amounts alleged to be excess from the petitioners shall be taken only after following due procedure and as mandatory under the applicable rules and regulations. Sri.B.Pramod, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that even though the 1^st petitioner has retired, the 2^nd petitioner is still in service and that Ext.P18 order would continue to hold the field as far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶34

I have examined Ext.P18. Even though this document was produced on record, it was not referred to by the parties when the matter was heard on 30.03.2017. No reference to Ext.P18 was made by either of the counsel for the parties and therefore, the judgment was delivered without referring to the said document. Sri. B.Pramod says that Ext.P18 is a Government order approving the staff pattern of the 2^nd respondent union. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, however, says that Ext.P18 is not the approved staff strength, but was one that was approved for the purpose of a particular programme called 'CD programme'. Whatever be the dialectical contentions of the

¶35

R.P.No.474 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.18145 of 2012 3

¶36

parties on this issue, I am of the view that it is necessary that Ext.P18 order of the Government also be taken into account while the respondents initiate or continue any proceedings to recover

¶37

amount from the petitioner allegedly as being in excess.

¶38

In such circumstances, I do not deem it necessary to admit this review petition, but I dispose it of clarifying that any action to recover any excess amount from the petitioners in terms of my judgment dated 30.03.2017 shall be taken by the respondents only after adverting Ext.P18 Government Order and after assessing whether any action pursuant to Ext.P18 would be required to be taken in view of Ext.P18.

¶39

With this clarification, I close this R.P.

¶40

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶41

¶42

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

¶43

The expression “ Exhibit P18 ” occurring in the 6^th line of paragraph No.5 of the order dated 21.06.2017 in R.P.No.474/2017 in W.P.(C)No.18145/2012 is corrected and

¶44

R.P.No.474 of 2017 in

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) No.18145 of 2012

¶47

substituted as “ Exhibit P10 ” as per order dated 12.06.2017 in I.A.No.616/2017 in R.P.No.474/2017 in W.P.(C)No.18145/2012.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

Registrar (Judicial)

K.Mohanan v. Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mohanan v. Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.

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

Dr.Mary Mathew Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

V.P.Ibrahim Kutty Vs Hotel Park Residency

K.Karunakaran Vs the Assistant Excise Commisioner

H. Sathya Shankara Bhat Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Profand Vayalat Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Intergrated Rubain Exports Limited Vs Vijaya Bank