Quashed

Mannarcaud Kudumasree (Cds) v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2017WP(C)/1339/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala quashed an order directing a Kudumbasree unit to vacate E-seva premises. This order was set aside because the Kudumbasree Mission Director was not heard. The Court remanded the matter to the District Collector for a hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P11 order quashed. Records transmitted to District Collector for final hearing within two months. Status quo regarding stored articles maintained.

Mannarcaud Kudumasree (Cds) Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/1ST CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 1339 of 2017 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MANNARCAUD KUDUMASREE (CDS) REGISTERED BODY, HAVING REGISTRATION NO.579/02, REP. BY SHAHANA.K.T.AGED 39, W/O. NOUSHAD, KALLADI HOUSE,KALLADI ROAD, MANNARCAUD POST, PALAKKAD PIN-678582, PRESIDENT M V D E-SEVA KENDRAM, MINI CIVIL STATION, MANNARCAUD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN-695001

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR IT MISSION AND AKSHAYA STATE IT MISSION OFFICE, KELTRON CAMPUS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001

¶12

3. THE DIRECTOR , KUDUMBASREE MISSION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001

¶13

4. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, VAZHUTHAKAD PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001

¶14

5. THE TAHSILDAR MANNARCAUD TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD PIN-678001

¶15

6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD. PIN-678001

¶16

7. THE MANNARCAUD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANNARCAUD PO.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN-678001

¶17

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 1339 of 2017 (N)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION FILED IN WPC NO.4618 OF 2016 DATED 4.2.2015 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.4618 OF 2016 DATED 8.3.2016 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 11.1.2016
EXHIBIT P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE KUDUMBASREE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATED 21.1.2016
EXHIBIT P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISIONS TAKEN OF THE KUDUMBASREE MEETING DATED 15.6.2016
EXHIBIT P6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MANNARKAD TAHSILDAR DATED 8.9.2016
EXHIBIT P7:	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MANNARKAD DATED 30.9.2016
EXHIBIT P8:	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DATED 6.10.20165
EXHIBIT P9:	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 7.11.2016
EXHIBIT P10:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15.11.2016
EXHIBIT P11:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR DATED 23.11.2016
EXHIBIT P12:	A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED 23.3.2016
EXHIBIT P13:	A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BY THE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT DATED 31.5.2016
EXHIBIT P14:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ISSUED DATED 12.1.2017
RESPONDENT	(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.1339 of 2017

¶28

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2017

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioner is a Kudumbasree unit at Mannarkkad, which is conducting the E-seva centre in the Mannarkkad Mini Civil Station providing services to the general public in relation to the Motor Vehicles Department at Mannarkkad. According to the petitioner, the centre commenced operation some time back and there is no complaint for the general public that substantial services or anything related to the services is not being provided by the petitioner. But, however, the same has resulted in a situation where many of the persons who are locally concentrated as far as small businesses are concerned are getting affected since the basis of starting such centres is to eradicate the menace of having middle men indulged in such activity. However, according to the petitioner, 5^th respondent has passed Ext.P11 order directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. It is thus challenging Ext.P11, this writ petition is filed.

¶31

The 5^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting

¶32

the allegations, claims and demands raised by the petitioner. It is

¶33

W.P.(C) No.1339 of 2017

¶34

¶35

predominantly contended that, Ext.P11 order was passed after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the convenor of the petitioner Kudumbasree unit and the entire aspects put forth by the said convener in the objection was taken note of by the 5^th respondent. That apart, it is stated that, in violation of the grant provided to the petitioner, petitioner has constructed a cabin encroaching into additional space of the Mini Civil Station, which constrained the space utilization of the Mini Civil Station. And in spite of the directives issued by the statutory authority the petitioner has not removed the same, which necessitated the 5^th respondent to take necessary action. Therefore, there is no illegality, arbitrariness or unfairness in passing Ext.11 order removing the petitioner from the Mini Civil Station premises.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth.

¶37

The question centers around Ext.P11. On a perusal of Ext.P11, it is evident that, petitioner was heard, taking into account the objections put forth by her. However, from the arguments put across the Bar one thing is clear the unit conducted by the petitioner is under the direct control of the

¶38

W.P.(C) No.1339 of 2017

¶39

¶40

third respondent, the Director, Kudembasree Mission, Thiruvananthapuram. On a reading of Ext.P11 it is not discernible whether the Director of the Kudumbasree Mission was heard and the objections put forth by the said authority was taken note of. From Ext.P11 what I could gather is that a notice was served on the said persons, but, on appearance he sought time for filing his own objection, which was not granted by the authority concerned, and therefore, Ext.P11 order is passed without hearing the necessary party to the proceedings . In that view of the matter I think an opportunity has to be provided to the third respondent to submit necessary objection and contest the proceedings.

¶41

During the course of argument learned Government Pleader submitted that the cabin was removed prior to the interim order passed and the same is kept in a premises, which is supposed to be provided by the authority for the camp sitting of the MACT and Family Court Thrissur.

¶42

Bearing in mind the aforesaid arguments advanced by the respective counsel, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P11 order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I do so. Since the subject issue has a material connection to the hierarchy

¶43

W.P.(C) No.1339 of 2017

¶44

¶45

enjoyed by the respondents 3 and 5 , it is only apposite that the issue is heard by the District Collector.

¶46

Therefore, there will be a direction to the third respondent to transmit the records to the 6^th respondent, District Collector forthwith . The 6^th respondent District Collector shall hear all concerned and a finality shall be attained to the entire issue within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

Since the articles are kept in a space where, utilization is required for accommodating two courts, the 5^th respondent is permitted to remove the articles from the room in question and keep it in a safe place, protecting from the weather conditions. Till such orders are passed the status quo granted by this Court, when the writ petition was admitted, will continue.

¶48

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶51

dlk/23/3/

Mannarcaud Kudumasree (Cds) v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mannarcaud Kudumasree (Cds) v. the State of Kerala

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

The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Rr) Vs Bijoy

Subair Kutty Vs State of Kerala

Amal F.R @ Amal Fasal Rahman Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education, Rep.by Its Secretary

Baby.K.T Vs State of Kerala

Sasikala Mohanachandran Vs State of Kerala

Anas A.R. Vs the Manager