Allowed

T.a.Santhosh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jan 2021WP(C)/13170/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second writ petition, the Court set aside an order (Ext.P19) issued by the Secretary of the Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA) for failing to comply with the directions in an earlier judgment (Ext.P18). The Court directed the Secretary to issue a fresh order expressly bearing in mind the relevant observations in Ext.P18 within two months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the order (Ext.P19) was set aside; a fresh order must be issued by the Secretary bearing in mind the observations in Ext.P18 judgment within two months.

T.a.Santhosh Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942 WP(C).No.13170 OF 2020(U)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

T.A.SANTHOSH, CARETAKER, KERALA INSTITUTE OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATOR (KILA) MULAMKUNNATHUVKAVU P.O., THRISSUR,PIN-680 581

¶7

BY ADVS. JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001

¶10

2 THE KERALA INSTITUTE OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (KILA), REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU P.O., THRISSUR,PIN-680 581

¶11

3 THE DIRECTOR, THE KERALA INSTITUTE OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (KILA), MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU P.O., THRISSUR,PIN-680 581

¶12

4 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 039

¶13

R3 BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, KILA SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 13170/20

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶19

for the second time through this Writ Petition.

¶20

2. In the first round, this Court has disposed of WP(C)No.16952/2013 through Ext.P18 judgment. The said judgment details various relevant aspects as also the tribulations faced by the petitioner in personal life; and thus directed the competent Secretary of the Government to take a fresh decision.

¶21

3. This court had also recorded therein that since the decision of the General Body of the Kerala Institute of Local Administration

¶22

(KILA for short) - which was in favour of the petitioner - was taken at a meeting presided by the Hon'ble Minister for Panchayats and

¶23

Social Welfare, this aspect should also specifically kept in mind, while issuing the

WPC 13170/20

resultant order.

4. However, going by Ext.P19, it is

¶28

evident that the Secretary who has issued the said order has not cared to read the judgment in its entirety or even to understand the sentiment and the purpose behind the various observations contained therein. In fact, Ext.P19 proceeds on a technical aspect that, as per the Bye-laws applicable to the KILA, the amount in question was not eligible to the petitioner.

¶29

5. Perhaps, discerning the mind of this

¶30

Court as afore, the learned Government Pleader – Sri.Sunil Kuriakose, submitted that Ext.P19 has been issued only because, as per Chapter V Rule 23 of the Regulations applicable to the KILA, the amount in question was not eligible to the petitioner. He, however, conceded, to a pointed question from this Court, that none of

¶31

WPC 13170/20

¶32

¶33

the other aspects directed to be specifically considered in the judgment have been mentioned in the order, though he asserted that all these had been kept in mind by the competent Secretary.

¶34

6. I am afraid that the explanation

¶35

offered by the learned Government Pleader cannot appeal to me because it has been well

¶36

settled, through various judgments, starting

¶37

from Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978(1) SCC 405], an order cannot be bettered by pleadings or

¶38

submissions.

¶39

7. In the case at hand, Ext.P19 fails

¶40

miserably from the touchstone of propriety and requirements of implicit compliance of the directions in the judgment and I have no doubt that it must fail.

¶41

8. At this time, the learned Government

¶42

WPC 13170/20

¶43

¶44

Pleader submitted that if this Court is so inclined, the Secretary will issue a fresh order specifically adverting and complying with the directions in Ext.P18 judgment.

¶45

I am certain that this is the best course

¶46

open to the Government and I, therefore, order this Writ Petition setting aside Ext.P19; with a concomitant direction to its Secretary to

¶47

issue a fresh order expressly bearing in mind the various observations and findings in Ext.P18 judgment.

¶48

The afore exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

I clarify that I am not asking that the petitioner be heard because it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that he was heard when Ext.P19 had been issued. I,

¶50

WPC 13170/20

¶51

¶52

therefore, further direct the said Authority to bear in mind the documents produced and the assertions earlier made by the petitioner during such hearing, while the order in terms of the afore directions are issued.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 13170/20

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶61

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND RULES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE BYE-LAWS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO KILA/E-76/1998 DATED 10.10.2000
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.76/1998 DATED 31.10.200 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 17.11.2000
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.28/98/G.EDN DATED 16.01.1998
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.142/99/CO-OP DATED 28.9.1999
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT HELD ON 14.3.2007
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.KILA/E-76/98 DATED 12.4.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPNDENT
EXHIBIT	P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL FOR THE YEAR 2009-10
EXHIBIT	P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.KILA/E-76/1998 DATED 20.6.2011 THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶62

WPC 13170/20

¶63

¶64

EXHIBIT	P12 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF 2ND RESPONDENT HELD ON 26.6.2012
EXHIBIT	P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.31522/IB2/11/LSGD DATED 23.11.2012 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE DATED 24.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.12.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL
EXHIBIT	P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO 77063/IB2/2012/LSGD DATED 16.3.2013
EXHIBIT	P17 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM DAYA GENERAL HOSPITAL AND SPECIALTY SURGICAL CENTER DATED 22.11.2014
EXHIBIT	P17A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM DAYA GENERAL HOSPITAL AND SPECIALTY SURGICAL CENTER DATED 24.11.2014
EXHIBIT	P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.08.2018 IN WPC 16952 OF 2013
EXHIBIT	P19 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.GO(MS) NO.75/2020/LSGD DATED 13.05.2020

T.a.Santhosh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.a.Santhosh 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

Jijo Alias Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

K.N.Nafeesa Vs the Authorized Officer/Manager

Jisha Philip Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Sajitha Vs Owners and Parties Intereseted in the Vessel Mv Sci Mumbai

Anthonyadimai Vs Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel Mv Sci Mumbai

Vijayakumar C Vs the Deputy Director of Education