Disposed

K.T. Rocky v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2020WP(C)/1353/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking flood relief had their appeals rejected by the Permanent Lok Adalat for lack of records on a website. The Court directed the Lok Adalat to entertain the appeals and examine maintainability, delay, and jurisdiction upon production of documents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Permanent Lok Adath to entertain appeals Exts.P1 to P10 upon production and consider all questions including maintainability and delay.

K.T. Rocky Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 14TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 K.T. ROCKY AGED 60 YEARS S/O THOMAS, KUTTIKKAL HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O. PIN-682 027.

¶8

2 K.R.GEBRIEL, AGED 70 YEARS S/O K.A RAPHEAL, KOMARAPPILLY HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O. PIN 682 027.

¶9

3 C.M. ANTONY, C/O ELZY, CHEMBOLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANDANAD, KOTHAD P.O. PIN-682 027.

¶10

4 ISMARIA, AGED 66 YEARS W/O OSSY GONSALWAZ, PALLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANDANAD, KOTHAD P.O. PIN-682 027.

¶11

5 SHJIJU ANTONY, AGED 39 YEARS S/O T.C.JOSEPH, THOTTAKATH HOUSE, KANDANAD, KOTHAD P.O. PIN-682 027.

¶12

6 T.J. VINCENT

¶13

AGED 61 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, THAIKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, KORAMPADAM, KOTHAD P.O., PIN-682 027.

¶14

7 GEORGE JOSEPH AGED 40 YEARS S/O GEORGE, KORAMPADOM, KOTHAD P.O., PIN-682 027.

¶15

8 BINU FRANCIS C.R, AGED 49 YEARS S/O RAPHEAL, KORAMPADOM, KOTHAD P.O., PIN-682 027.

¶16

9 C.V.TOMY, AGED 62 YEARS

¶17

WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)

¶18

¶19

S/O VARUTHUKUTTY, CHAMMINIKODATH HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O., PIN-682 027.

¶20

¶21

BASTIN PAUL, AGED 45 YEARS S/O M.S SEBASTIAN, MUZHAGUMTHARA HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O., PIN-682 027.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS

¶23

RESPONDENTS:

¶24

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, STATE RELIEF COMMISSIONER AND CONVENER, KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, OBSERVATORY HILLS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶25

2 PERMANENT LOKA ADALAT, ERNAKULAM, KALOOR, PIN-682 017.

¶26

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN, DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD-682 030.

¶27

4 STATE RELIEF COMMISSIONER AND CONVENER, KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, OBSERVATORY HILL, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶28

OTHER PRESENT:

¶29

SMT.PRINCY XAVIER , GP

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)

¶32

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioners are residents of Ernakulam who claim that they lost their homestead and suffered a lot of damages in the flood of 2018. Their complaint is that the second appeal preferred by them before the Lok Adalat are not being accepted. According to them, aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sum of Rs.10000 towards flood relief, they had preferred appeals before the District Disaster Management Authority through their Panchayath. They claim that those appeals were rejected on the ground that their details were not available in the website of re-build

¶35

Kerala. It is stated that they have thereupon approached the Permanent Lok Adalath in the light of the directions of this Court in the judgment in Shibi A.A and Others v. Union of India and Others [2019 (1)

¶36

KHC 744], filing second appeals Exts.P1 to P10. But the Permanent Lok Adalath did not entertain their

¶37

WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)

¶38

¶39

appeals as per Exts.P1A, P2A, P3A, P4A, P5, P6A, P7A, P8A, P9A and P10A on the ground that details are not available in the website of re-build Ernakulam. On that ground it is stated that the second appeals are not entertained by the permanent Lok Adalat which has been designated to entertain the second appeals by this Court in Shibi A.A and Others v. Union of India and Others [2019 (1) KHC 744].

¶40

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as the first appeals were submitted before the District Collector through the Panchayath they do not have the records with them and therefore they filed the second appeals collecting the available documents.

¶41

Learned Government Pleader submits that there is nothing to show that they preferred appeals in time either before the District Disaster Management Authority or before the Permanent Lok Adalath. It is pointed out only available document which contains the endorsement that the details are

¶42

WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)

¶43

¶44

not available in the website of re-build Ernakulam is in Ext.P3A and that no endorsement is seen made in other appeals or orders on appeals.

¶45

Learned Government Pleader submits that

¶46

petitioners have not submitted their appeals within the time permitted in the judgment in Shibi 's case (supra) or even within extended time.

¶47

Since petitioners assert that they have

¶48

filed appeals through the Grama Panchayat, I am of the view of that it would be open for the Permanent

¶49

Lok Adalat to entertain the appeals and consider all the questions including on their claim that appeals were preferred before the 3^rd respondent.

¶50

Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with a

¶51

direction to the Permanent Lok Adalath to entertain the appeals Exts.P1 to P10 on production of the same by the petitioners and consider the question of maintainability and including the question whether they had filed the appeals before the 3^rd respondent

¶52

as well as on the question of delay involved, after

¶53

WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)

¶54

¶55

hearing the petitioners and to take further

¶56

proceedings depending on the decision.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE

WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)

¶61

¶62

APPENDIX

¶63

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶64

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF 1.11.2019 SUBMITT PETITIONER	THE APPEAL DATED ED BY THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P1 A	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED DATED 25.10 THE 1ST PETITIONE	THE REJECTION LETTER .2019 SUBMITTED BY R
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF 25.11.2019 SUBMIT PETITIONER	THE APPEAL DATED TED BY THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P 2A	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 8.11.2019 S PETITIONER	THE REJECTION LETTER UBMITTED BY THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF 1.11.2019 SUBMITT PETITIONER	THE APPEAL DATED ED BY THE 3RD
EXHIBIT P 3A	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 29.10.2019 PETITIONER	THE REJECTION LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF SUBMITTED BY THE	THE APPEAL DATED NIL 4TH PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P 4A	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED NIL SUBMITT PETITIONER	THE REJECTION LETTER ED BY THE 4TH
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 29.10.2019 PETITIONER	THE REJECTION LETTER SUBMITTED OF 5TH
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF 10.12.2019 SUBMIT PETITIONER	THE APPEAL DATED TED BY THE 6TH
EXHIBIT P6A	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED NIL SUBMITT PETITIONER	THE REJECTION LETTER ED BY THE 6TH

¶65

WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)

¶66

¶67

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 9.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER

¶68

EXHIBIT P7A THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL REJECTION LETTER DATED 29.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER

¶69

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER EXHIBIT P 8A THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 8.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 30.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER

¶70

EXHIBIT P 9A. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 28.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER

¶71

EXHIBIT P10A THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 27.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER

K.T. Rocky v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T. Rocky 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhilash K.Thomas Vs the District Level Authorization Committee

Team One Advertising Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Usha Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kwa

Babu K.P. Vs P.G.Unnikrishnan

S.Suran Vs the Special Secretary

Jose T. Poonnichira Vs Kerala Water Authority