Disposed

Dinesan T. v. the District Collector - Malappuram

Kerala HC5 Jan 2021WP(C)/28967/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation concerning transport rates for ration articles from FCI to PDS depots. The court mandated a decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass orders after hearing all stakeholders within two months.

Dinesan T. Vs the District Collector - Malappuram — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942 WP(C).No.28967 OF 2020(U)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

DINESAN T. AGED 50 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN, KONTHAYIL HOUSE, VELIMUKKU SOUTH P.O. MALAPPURAM 676 317.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR - MALAPPURAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶10

2 DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICERMALAPPURAM DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶11

3 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERMALAPPURAM, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶12

4 REGIONAL MANAGERSUPPLYCO REGIONAL OFFICE, MANORAMA ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶13

5 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED (SUPPLYCO), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI 682 020.

¶14

6 LORRY OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FCI GODWON - ANGADIPPURAM, ANGADIPPURAM P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 321.

¶15

WP(C).No.28967 OF 2020(U)

¶16

¶17

7 LORRY OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (LOWA), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FCI GODWON - ANGADIPPURAM, ANGADIPPURAM P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 321.

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC, SUPPLYCO, SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.28967 OF 2020(U)

¶22

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Petitioner claims to be a Contractor engaged in

¶25

the transportation of articles from Food Corporation of India (FCI) Godowns and CMR Mills to Public Distribution System Depot (PDS Depot) at Manjeri and Nilambur. He also states that he is the lowest bidder for transportation of ration articles from FCI

¶26

Godowns and CMR Mills to PDS Depots in Manjeri and Perinthalmanna and certain Taluks. According to him

¶27

the Lorry Owners/Operators Associations are demanding high rates and interfering with the smooth transportation of articles. It is stated that though certain meetings were convened at the instance of the first respondent, the issue is not resolved and therefore petitioner has approached the first respondent with Ext.P5 representation.

¶28

Learned Standing Counsel for the Civil Supplies Corporation points out that no

¶29

representation is submitted before the Civil Supplies

¶30

WP(C).No.28967 OF 2020(U)

¶31

¶32

Corporation and they are not given any such representation like Ext.P5.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶34

as well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶35

As petitioner submits that he would be satisfied with a direction to the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P5 representation, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders including the Regional Manager of Civil Supplies Corporation-4^th respondent, the Lorry Operators Association, Lorry Owners Welfare Association-respondents 6 and 7 and petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶36

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE

¶37

¶38

WP(C).No.28967 OF 2020(U)

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 18.08.2020 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT MANGER, SUPPLYCO TALUK DEPOT, MANJERI.

¶43

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07.12.2020 OF THE DEPOT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO, TALUK DEPOT MANJERI.

¶44

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF TENDER NO. NFSA- V 17016 OF ERNAD TALUK AVAILABLE IN

¶45

E- TENDERING SYSTEM.

¶46

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF TENDER NO. NFSA- V 17016 OF PERINTHALMANNA, TALUK AVAILABLE IN E- TENDING SYSTEM.

¶47

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 14.12.2020 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEEF THE RESPONDENTS 1 O 3.

Dinesan T. v. the District Collector - Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesan T. v. the District Collector - Malappuram

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

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Ajith Kumar K.J

Shwas Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

K.J.Philipose Vs a.Jaya Thilak

M.Sadasivan Vs Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

Samson Varghese Vs State of Kerala

M.P. Varghese @ George Mundackal, Vs State of Kerala