Dismissed

Asokan V.P v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2021WP(C)/1232/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitioner's writ petition. The court held that the petitioner's claim for compensation due to alleged assault and humiliation requires factual adjudication through examination of witnesses and documents in the appropriate forum, likely a civil court, rather than a writ proceeding.

What did the court decide?

None. Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

Asokan V.P Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(C).No.1232/2021-D 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶6

WP(C).No.1232 OF 2021(D)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

ASOKAN V.P, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. POOMATHY, HOUSE NO.XIII/166/B, MADATHIKKADU COLONY ROAD, SOUTH SIDE OF SREENARAYANAPURAM TEMPLE, EZHUPUNNA P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688537.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.N.C.JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030.

¶13

3 THE TAHSILDAR,

¶14

KOCHI TALUK, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001.

¶15

4 SIVADASAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAN, EDAKKAD HOUSE, CHERAI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683514.

¶16

5 DENISON KOMATH, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. DOWSON, KOMATH HOUSE, MURIKKUMPADOM, AZHEEKAL P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682508.

¶17

SMT.VINITHA.B, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P(C).No.1232/2021-D

¶20

¶21

P.V.ASHA, J .

¶22

W.P(c) No.1232 of 2021-D

¶23

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2021

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶26

"i) To direct the 2^nd respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner for the mental agony and suffering consequent upon his premature transfer for extraneous reasons.

¶27

ii) To direct the Tahsildar the 3^rd respondent to initiate appropriate criminal action against respondents 4 and 5 for their hooliganism and that of assault and humiliation calling his cast name and for obstructing official work of the government servant through police.

¶28

iii) To pass such other orders and reliefs as may be prayed for and court deem fit to grant in the circumstances of this case along with costs."

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of transfer which, according

¶30

to him, has been ordered at the instance of respondents 4 and 5, who are having high political influence in the locality. According to the petitioner, he has been acting strictly in accordance with law and is a law abiding official. It is stated that respondents 4 and 5 had proclaimed his transfer unless orders are issued in their favour. It is also his complaint that the Tahsildar, a superior officer, who has to protect an official under him, did not take any action. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the representation submitted by the petitioner before the District Collector, no action was taken and instead of protecting the petitioner, the

¶31

W.P(C).No.1232/2021-D 3

¶32

superior officers ordered his transfer. Relying on the video clippings of the incident which occurred on 20.03.2020 the petitioner claims that he was assaulted, manhandled and humiliated at the instance of respondents 4 and 5 and the 3^rd respondent, who is the Tahsildar, did not do anything to protect him. The petitioner has therefore sought for payment of compensation towards mental agony he suffered for being a sincere and devoted official.

¶33

Since the petitioner himself is relying on the video clippings and the issue is raised in respect of an incident which is claimed to have occurred in the office of the Village Officer, adjudication of the issue raised by the petitioner requires evidence by examining the witnesses as well as documents including the video clippings. Therefore, the appropriate remedy available for the petitioner would be to approach an appropriate forum, including a civil court.

¶34

In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

¶35

rtr/

¶36

W.P(C).No.1232/2021-D

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2020 GENERATED FROM THE OFFICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.11.2018 IN WP(C) NO.36514/2018 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2019 IN CONTEMPT CASE NO.2559/2019 IN WP(C) NO. 36514/2018 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5.5.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.05.2020 SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MANORAMA DAILY DATED 21.03.2020. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPT CASE NO2559/2019 IN WPC 36514/2018 DATED 24.2.2020.

Asokan V.P v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asokan V.P 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

Fida Ashraf. K Vs State Bank of India

K.R.Baiju Vs the General Manager

Greeshma A.G. Vs State of Kerala

Sudevan Vs State of Kerala

Markose Kuzhalanattu Vs Chief Manager, Kerala Financial Corporation

Jayaprakash Dhamodharan Vs the State of Kerala