Allowed

Zakkir Hussain v. Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes

Kerala HC11 Mar 2019WP(C)/72/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order by the State Commission for Scheduled Castes/Tribes regarding a property transaction dispute. The Court held that the order was arbitrary and violated natural justice as the petitioner was not impleaded or given an opportunity to be heard, and directed the Commission to reconsider after impleading the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 24.10.2014; directed the Commission to reconsider the matter after impleading the petitioner, issuing notices, and providing an opportunity of hearing.

Zakkir Hussain Vs Kerala State Commission for… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 72 of 2015

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ZAKKIR HUSSAIN AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. P.A. MOHAMMED KANI, VALUPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMARA P.O., VENKOTTA MURI, MADAPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM -686 546.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES,

¶12

AYYANKALI BHAVAN, KANAKANAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.

¶13

2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM - 686 538.

¶14

3 SANTHAMMA D/O. SAROJINI, KUNNIL VEEDU, AMARA P.O., MADAPALLY, VENKOTTA, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM - 686 546.

¶15

BY ADVS.

¶16

R1 & R2 SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER R3 BY SRI.T.K.SANDEEP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 72 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner

¶22

seeking to quash Ext.P5 order passed by the 1^st respondent i.e., the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Complaint No.1891/A5/2013/KTM/KSCSCST dated 24.10.2014, whereby the documents produced by the complainant i.e., the 3^rd respondent was marked and arrived at a conclusion that 3^rd respondent was given only Rs.10,00,000/- in a property transaction but the delinquent accused, the petitioner herein, claimed that he had paid Rs.13,60,000/- to the parties and having found that, there is breach of contract, the Deputy Superintendent

¶23

of Police was directed to register a case and investigate against the issue. It is thus challenging the said order, this writ petition is filed.

¶24

The subject issue relates to a transaction of

¶25

immovable property entered into by and between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. However, it is

¶26

surprising to note that, the petitioner was not made a party in the complaint before the Commission.

¶27

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the

¶28

WP(C).No. 72 of 2015 3

¶29

3^rd respondent herein justifying the orders passed by

¶30

the Commission. A counter affidavit is also filed by

¶31

2^nd respondent i.e., the Deputy Superintendent of Police, wherein it is stated that, the investigation is going on pursuant to the directions issued by the 1^st respondent Commission.

¶32

I have heard respective counsel across the Bar

¶33

and perused the pleadings and documents on record. I

¶34

am not going into the details put forth by the respective parties in their respective affidavit since from Ext.P5 order it is clear that, petitioner was not made a party in the said proceedings. The Commission has chosen to pass Ext.P5 order based on the documents

¶35

produced by the 3^rd respondent. However the orders are passed adverse to the petitioner and any other affected persons without them being in the party array. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, Ext.P5 order suffers from the

¶36

vice of arbitrariness and illegality liable to be interfered with by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The action of the 1^st respondent

¶37

Commission is also violative of the principles of natural justice since no opportunity was provided to

¶38

WP(C).No. 72 of 2015 4

¶39

the petitioner before passing any orders creating adverse circumstances to the petitioner.

¶40

Therefore, I quash Ext.P5 and direct the 1^st

¶41

respondent to re-consider the matter after impleading the petitioner also, and issuing notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and others, at the earliest possible time. The

¶42

investigation conducted pursuant to the directions issued by the Commission will be further continued after securing further orders from the Commission.

¶43

Writ petition is allowed to the above extent.

Smv 11.3.2019

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 72 of 2015

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 27/10/2011 OFFICE.	SALE DEED NO. 3102/2011 OF THENGANA SUB REGISTRY
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE O.S 408/2013 ON T MUNSIFF COURT, CH	ORDER IN I.A 2368/2013 OF HE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE ANAGANASSERY.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.	COMPLAINT DATED 10/04/2013 RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IST
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE 09/12/2013 FILED THE IST RESPONDEN	COUNTER STATEMENT DATED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE T.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE 24/10/2014 PASSED	IMPUGNED ORDER DATED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
RESPOND	ENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT R1 NIL EXHIBIT R2 NIL EXHIBIT R2 (a) A TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHANGANACHERRY EXHIBIT R2 (b) A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRICKODITHANAM EXHIBIT R3 (a) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.8.2010 SUBMITTED BY SAROJI BEFORE THE S.I. OF POLICE, TRIKODY EXHIBIT R3 (b) A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.8/2012 BEFORE THE CHANGANACHERRY MUNSIFF'S COURT DATED 4.1.2011 EXHIBIT R3(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION IN O.S.8/2011 BEFORE THE CHANGANACHERRY MUNSIFF COURT DATED 11.10.2012 EXHIBIT R3 (d) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 27.10.2011 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN AFSAL MUHAMMED AND THE RESPONDENT'S MOTHER EXHIBIT R3 (e) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 13.4.2012 EXECUTED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER EXHIBIT R3 (f) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 13.2.2013 EXECUTED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER

¶54

WP(C).No. 72 of 2015

¶55

¶56

EXHIBIT R3 (g) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REGISTER OF PETITIONS DATED 24.4.2013 OF THE OFFICE OF DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT R3 (h) A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON 22.7.2014 IN O.S.408/2013 BEFORE THE CHANGANACHERRY MUSSIFF'S COURT EXHIBIT R3 (i) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT RECORDED BY S.I. OF POLICE, THRIKODITHANAM ON 24.12.2014 EXHIBIT R3 (j) A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.2014/2014 REGISTERED AT THRIKODITHANAM P.S. DATED 24.12.2014

Zakkir Hussain v. Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakkir Hussain v. Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala Handball Association Vs Union of India

Anagha Rajan Vs the Kerala State Sports Council

Priya A.J Vs Punjab National Bank

Suresh Kumar, Vs District Collector

Premalatha Prabhakar, Vs the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sivaraj Vs Union of India