Disposed

Martin Theroth v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2019WP(C)/5053/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging marginal increase in Akshaya service charges sought quashing of orders. The Court directed the Secretary, IT Department to consider the petitioners' representation (Ext.P8) regarding grievances and suggestions, pass appropriate orders, and do so within three months from receipt of the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation with notice and pass appropriate orders within three months; petitioners to produce copy of WP and judgment for compliance.

Martin Theroth Vs the State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5053 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MARTIN THEROTH AGED 49 YEARS THEROTH HOUSE, MUNAMBAM, PALLIPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 515.

¶8

2 SALJITH.P.R. PATTAHTANATH HOUSE, CHERAI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 514.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.PREM CHAND

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 001.

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 001.

¶13

3 THE DIRECTOR IT MISSION AND AKSHAYA, STATE IT MISSION OFFICE, KELTRON CAMPUS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 695 010.

¶14

4 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IT MISSION AND AKSHAYA, STATE IT MISSION OFFICE, KELTRON CAMPUS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 010.

¶15

SRI.B VINOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 5053 of 2019 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶20

seeking the following reliefs :-

¶21

i) call for records leading to Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P3 and quash the same.

¶22

ii) Declare Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P3 as Violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents to appoint an Expert Committee to re assess the rates fixed for the service charges as per Exhibit P2 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and affected Akshaya Enterpreneurs in the State.

¶24

iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider the grievances and suggestions highlighted in Exhibit P8 and Exhibit P9 forthwith and to keep Exhibit P3 in abeyance.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶26

petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

¶27

WP(C).No. 5053 of 2019 3

¶28

counsel for the petitioners that the marginal increase in the service charges had been effected by Exts.P2 and P3 Government Orders.

¶29

It is stated that the grievance of the petitioners that they were operating the Akshaya Kendras and offering services extremely at reasonable rates has not been considered while effecting the revision of rates. Pointing out all these aspects and also the difficulty faced due to the conduct of unauthorised Janaseva Kendras in the

¶30

vicinity of the Akshaya Kendras,the petitioners have preferred Ext.P8

¶31

representation before the Government.

¶32

Hav ing heard the learned Government

¶33

Pleader also, I am of the opinion that Ext.P8 representation which is preferred by the petitioners and other similarly situated

¶34

WP(C).No. 5053 of 2019 4

¶35

persons is liable to be considered in

¶36

accordance with law.

¶37

There will accordingly be a direction to the second respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 representation preferred by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons with notice to the petitioners and the third responde nt. Orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance.

¶38

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

SD/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

ACM /20.02.2019

WP(C).No. 5053 of 2019 5

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GO DATED 6/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/05/2018 BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PAMPHLET. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF PAMPHLET. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF PAMPHLET. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 27/06/2018. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05/12/2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05/12/2018 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Martin Theroth v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Martin Theroth 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

Mr.Sudheer a., Vs Assistant General Manager

Sylcon Trading Establishment, Vs Union of India

K.a.Joseph, Vs the Secretary to Government

S.Suja Vs Shri. K.Raju

V.R.Money Vs Regional Officer

Majeed.R.M Vs State of Kerala