Partly allowed

P.N.Sreenivasan v. the District Collector

Kerala HC2 Sept 2021WP(C)/12138/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two connected writ petitions. It directed the District Collector to pass final orders on the petitioner's renewal application and to consider a fresh representation regarding a disputed refund claim after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to pass final orders on renewal within 3 months. Petitioner directed to pay Rs.1 lakh to 3rd respondent within one month; 1st respondent to consider fresh representatio

P.N.Sreenivasan Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 11TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 12138 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.N.SREENIVASAN

¶8

DIRECTOR, SAI SANKARA SHANTHI KENDRAM, MANICKAMANGALAM P.O., KALADY PIN 683 574.

¶9

BY ADV JOSE J.MATHEIKEL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682 030

¶12

2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682 030.

¶13

3 PARAMESHWARAN PILLAI,

¶14

SAI SANTHIKENDRAM , MANICKAMANGALAM, P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 574.

¶15

4 THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030. ADV.SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).12378/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) Nos.12138/2020 & 12378/2021

¶18

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶22

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 11TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 12378 OF 2021

¶23

PETITIONER:

¶24

SRI SAI SANKARA SANTHIKENDRAM GOVT REG.NO.1067,MANCKAMANGALAM.P.O, KALADY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683574, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,P.N.SREENIVASAN.

¶25

BY ADV JOSE J.MATHEIKEL

¶26

RESPONDENT:

¶27

BOARD OF CONTROL FOR THE ORPHANAGE AND OTHER CHARITABLE HOMES KERALA, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE,VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶28

ADV.SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GP

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).12138/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

WP(C) Nos.12138/2020 & 12378/2021

¶31

¶32

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶33

W.P.(C)Nos.12138 of 2020 and 12378 of 2021 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of September 2021

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

These two writ petitions are connected and therefore I am disposing these two writ petitions by a common judgment. I will consider the contentions in W.P.(C)No.12138/2020 at first.

¶36

2. The petitioner in this writ petition is running an old age home at Manickamangalam, Kalady in Ernakulam district. According to the petitioner, he is protecting the old aged persons in the society. It is the case of the petitioner that some of the inmates are staying in the institution free of cost. The 3^rd respondent is an inmate in the above institution from 20.05.2017. At the time of admission, it is stated that the 3^rd respondent paid

¶37

an amount of Rs.3 lakhs. Ext.P1 is the bank statement showing the payment. While paying the above amount, it is the case of the petitioner that

¶38

WP(C) Nos.12138/2020 & 12378/2021 4

¶39

the 3^rd respondent requested him to issue a receipt showing the payment of Rs.6 lakhs for using it as a help to collect amount from his friends and relatives and further agreeing to pay the balance amount of 3 lakhs immediately. Hence, according to the petitioner the receipt for Rs.6 lakhs was issued. Subsequently, the 3^rd respondent approached the 1^st respondent with certain allegation against the petitioner's old age home. Notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted their explanation before the 1^st respondent. Subsequently, Ext.P4 order is passed by the 1^st respondent in which

¶40

it is stated that the petitioner should return an amount of Rs.6 lakhs to the 3^rd respondent. There is a further direction by the 1^st respondent to the authority concerned to inspect the old age home of the petitioner and make sure that the inmates are staying there without any problem. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order in this writ petition.

¶41

3. W.P.(C)No.12378/2021 is filed alleging that the application for renewal of recognition submitted

¶42

¶43

WP(C) Nos.12138/2020 & 12378/2021

¶44

by the petitioner is not considered by the authority concerned.

¶45

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel who appeared for the 3^rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.12138/2020.

¶46

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the writ petition. The learned counsel submitted that, a perusal of

¶47

Ext.P4 order will show that the 3^rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.12138/2020 admitted that he is staying in the old age home and he is even ready to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees Seven thousand only) per month as remuneration for his stay. That is not considered by the 1^st respondent while passing Ext.P4 order. Several other contentions were also raised

¶48

by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the District Collector after considering all the contentions of the petitioner and also the pathetic situation of the 3^rd respondent, passed Ext.P4 order.

¶49

WP(C) Nos.12138/2020 & 12378/2021 6

¶50

It is the specific case of the 3^rd respondent that he is not getting even food from the old age home, which is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the 3^rd respondent is entitled the entire amount of Rs.6 lakhs which he paid to the petitioner.

¶51

6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there are several allegations against this old age home and appropriate steps are being taken against the old age home authorities. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of recognition is not within time. But the learned Government Pleader conceded that the final orders are not passed in it because the petitioner is directed to produce certain documents and the same is not produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all those documents were produced on 09.08.2021.

¶52

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶53

¶54

WP(C) Nos.12138/2020 & 12378/2021

¶55

there can be a direction to the authority concerned to pass final orders in the renewal application of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12378/2021.

¶56

8. As far as the grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12138/2020 is concerned, I do not want to make any observation on merit and I do not want to interfere with Ext.P4 order also. But it is the specific case of the petitioner that the 3^rd respondent is even now residing in the old age home and the authorities of the old age home is giving food and shelter to the 3^rd respondent. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent disputed the same and submitted that no food is supplied by the old age home authorities to the 3^rd respondent. According to me, these are matters to be decided by the 1^st respondent. Any deduction from the amount which is already allowed in Ext.P4 order can be considered by the 1^st respondent, if a fresh representation is submitted by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12138/2020, narrating his grievance. If such a representation is received, there can be a direction to the 1^st

¶57

¶58

WP(C) Nos.12138/2020 & 12378/2021

¶59

respondent to consider the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent.

¶60

Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed in the following manner:

¶61

i) The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12138/2020 is allowed to file a representation for getting reduction in the amount ordered to be paid as per Ext.P4 within three weeks from the date of receipt

¶62

of a copy of this judgment.

¶63

ii) If such a representation is received by the 1^st respondent, the 1^st respondent will consider the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three

¶64

months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶65

iii) I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit and the 1^st respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance to law.

¶66

WP(C) Nos.12138/2020 & 12378/2021

¶67

¶68

iv) The further recovery based on Ext.P4 order will be subject to the result of the final decision taken by the District Collector in the above representation, on condition that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12138/2020 will pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh to the 3^rd respondent within one month from today. This will be in addition to the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) paid as per the interim order passed in this case.

¶69

v) The application submitted by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12378/2021 for the renewal of recognition which is referred in Ext.P3 will be considered by the respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶72

¶73

WP(C) Nos.12138/2020 & 12378/2021

¶74

¶75

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12378/2021

¶76

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶77

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 18.3.2004 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION DATED 3/9/2014 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27/11/2020 FROM MEMBER SECRETARY OF RESPONDENT.

¶78

WP(C) Nos.12138/2020 & 12378/2021

¶79

¶80

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12138/2020

¶81

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶82

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF BANK STATEMENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28-02-2020 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 11/3/2020 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5/6/2020 BY COLLECTOR EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION

¶83

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶84

EXHIBIT -R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 3353 DATED 20-05-2017 FOR RS. 6,00,000/- ISSUED FROM SAI SANKARA SANTHI KENDRAM EXHIBIT -R3(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 20-05-2017 EXHIBIT R3(c) A COPY OF LETTER DATED 21-12-2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM OCB

¶85

//TRUE COPY//

¶86

PA TO JUDGE

P.N.Sreenivasan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.N.Sreenivasan v. the District Collector

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

David John Vs the District Collector

Dr.Naveen K Vs the Principal, Government Medical College

Sabu C Vs the Chenkal Grama Panchayath

Rajamma.G. Vs Sub Collector/ Sub Divisional Magistrate

Alex Cherian Vs Union of India

Sri Sai Sankara Santhikendram Vs Board of Control for the Orphanage and Other Charitable Homes, Kerala