Disposed

K.Y.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Sept 2018WP(C)/19923/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the denied balance compensation for culled ducks, the Court directed the second respondent to consider a detailed representation from the petitioner within three months, noting the dispute over the number of ducks eligible for compensation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider a detailed representation by the petitioner from the appropriate authority within three months of filing of the representation.

K.Y.Varghese Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 14TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 19923 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.Y.VARGHESE AGED 68 YEARS,S/O.YOHANNAN, CHANGAIL PUTHENVEETTIL, ERAMATHOOR PO,CHENNITHALA, MANNAR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM)

¶9

RESPONDENTS/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶12

3 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033

¶13

4 THE DISTRICT OFFICER, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, COLLECTORATE ALAPPUZHA - 688 001

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.B.VINOD.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO.19923 OF 2018

¶17

:-2-:

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following

¶20

prayers:-

¶21

"i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order compelling the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,50,000/-as compensation for culling of 18,246 numbers of duck on 10/11/2016 as evident from Exts.P3 & P4 with interest @ 12% per annum thereon.

¶22

ii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as declaredin Ext.P2 for the entire 18246 numbers of duck destroyed on 10/11/2016 as evident from Exts.P3 & P4."

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶24

Government Pleader.

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though it is an admitted fact that 18,246 ducks had been culled by the respondents due to the Avian flu threat in the petitioner's duck farm, only an amount of `7,74,600/- had been paid to the petitioner as compensation. It is stated that the finding of the respondents that the petitioner had brought in 10,500 ducklings to his farm after the Avian flu was confirmed on 26.10.2016, cannot be sustained and that the petitioner is entitled for compensation for all the ducks culled.

¶26

A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the third

¶27

WP(C) NO.19923 OF 2018

¶28

:-3-:

¶29

respondent pointing out that the outbreak of the Avian flu in the locality had been confirmed on 26.10.2016 and the compensation had been awarded to the petitioner for the number of ducks culled, which were in his possession as on the date when the outbreak was confirmed. It is submitted that the compensation had been denied, with respect to the ducklings, which were brought to the area after the outbreak was confirmed.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even if all the contentions raised are accepted, 18,246 ducks belonging to the petitioner had been culled and even giving allowance for the 10,500 ducklings, which were brought in after 25.10.2016, the petitioner would be entitled for compensation much in excess of what has been granted since compensation had been granted only in respect of 7746 ducks. The petitioner also contends that the finding of the respondents that the petitioner had brought in ducks after the outbreak was confirmed, is also not factually correct.

¶31

I am of the opinion that these are matters which are to be raised by the petitioner before the appropriate authority. In the above view of the matter, it is directed that in case the petitioner approaches the second

¶32

:-4-:

¶33

WP(C) NO.19923 OF 2018

¶34

respondent with a detailed representation, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, taking note of the fact that 18,246 ducks found in the petitioner's premises had been culled. Orders shall be passed by the second respondent after hearing the petitioner also within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation.

¶35

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE 5^th September,2018.

MBS/

-true copy-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.9.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PERMITTING THE PETITIONER AND OTHER DUCK FARM OWNERS TO CONTINUE THE NURSERY ANOTHER 1 YEAR FROM 29.9.2016.

¶43

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(K) NO.34/2016/AGRICULTURAL DATED 5.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶44

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RRT REPORT WITH RESPECT TO 8474 NUMBERS OF DUCKS DESTROYED ON 10.11.2016.

¶45

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RRT REPORT WITH RESPECT TO 9772 NUMBER OF DUCKS DESTROYED ON 10.11.2016.

¶46

WP(C) NO.19923 OF 2018

¶47

:-5-:

¶48

EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASS BOOK SHOWING THE PAYMENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 22.6.2017 ALONG WITH THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26.12.2017 SENT BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE VETERINARY SURGEON ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

K.Y.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Y.Varghese v. 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

Terrance Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Sindhu Vs State of Kerala

Silpa Projects and Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Thiruvantnhapuram Development Authority (Trida)

The Manager, Life Insurance Corporaiton of India Vs v.N.Jhansi

Ayub K.M Vs Village Officer, Pazhayannur Village

Johny Joseph Vs the Commissioner (Land Revenue)