Disposed

Rahul a. v. the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (M & M) Ltd., (K.S.B.C.)

Kerala HC6 Sept 2021WP(C)/17745/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's delayed representation regarding rejoining service within one month and to provide an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was disposed of following this direction.

What did the court decide?

Ordering second respondent to consider petitioner's representation within one month and allow opportunity of hearing.

Rahul a. Vs the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (M… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 15TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17745 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RAHUL A. AGED 29 YEARS S/O.APPUKUTTAN, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, TALUK OFFICE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD - 679 101, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE HOUSE, PANAYUR POST, POLPPULLY, PALAKKAD - 678 552.

¶8

BY ADV U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION (M & M) LTD., (K.S.B.C.)

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.

¶12

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION (M AND M) LTD., SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.

¶13

3 THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI. A.S. DHEERAJ (G.P)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C) NO. 17745 OF 2021

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner was working as Assistant Grade II in KSBC. He resigned from that post and he joined revenue department. By Ext.P4, his resignation was accepted. Thereafter, he joined the department of revenue. It seems that the petitioner wanted to return to KSBC and he submitted Ext.P5 representation before the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of considerable delay, his application has not been considered.

¶22

It seems that Ext.P5 is dated 08.12.2020. Necessarily, the second respondent ought to have taken a decision by now, on merits. Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the petitioner proposes to seek an opportunity of being heard, I am inclined

¶23

WP(C) NO. 17745 OF 2021 3

¶24

to direct the second respondent to give an opportunity of being heard personally and if not possible, through video conferencing on a date to be specified and intimated in advance by the second respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner shall forward a copy of this judgment for compliance to the second respondent along with a copy of Ext.P5.

¶25

Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶28

R.AV

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 17745 OF 2021

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17745/2021

¶32

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶33

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25/1/2021 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/9/2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TYPED COPY.
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT DATED 8/7/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF REPLY RECEIVED FRO PIO, KSBC DATED 10/8/2021 TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF KSBC EMPLOYEE SERVICE RULES.

Rahul a. v. the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (M & M) Ltd., (K.S.B.C.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul a. v. the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (M & M) Ltd., (K.S.B.C.)

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

Sharmila v. Vs the State of Kerala

Anoopa C.K. Vs the Chief Engineer (Hrd and General)

Sunil Kumar R., Vs the Kerala Shipping and Inland Navigation Corporation Ltd. - Ksinc

Tom Mathew Vs the Union of India

T.K.Radhakrishnan, Vs State of Kerala

A.Suresh Vs Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd.