Allowed

J. Nisamudeen, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2021WP(C)/8511/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the delayed payment of balance course fees by the State to an educational center, the High Court held that given the prolonged delay in the vigilance inquiry, the respondent officials should not insist on indefinite renewal of bank guarantee.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 to 4 shall not insist on further renewal of bank guarantee; parties are free to direct petitioner to execute a simple bond before releasing the guarantee.

J. Nisamudeen, Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 19TH KARTHIKA,

¶4

¶5

WP(C) NO. 8511 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

J. NISAMUDEEN,
AGED 50 YEARS
DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR ADVANCED COMPUTER EDUCATION
(CACE), OPPOSITE TO K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN-690 518, RESIDING AT
KUNNUMPURATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, EDAKKULANGARA (PO),
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 523.

¶8

BY ADVS.
G.BIJU
SRI.V.A.VINOD

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE, NANDAVANAM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 033.

¶12

3 DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O.KOLLAM-690 518.

¶13

4 SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRADE 11, BLOCK PANCHAYATH, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690 544.

¶14

-2-

¶15

W.P.(C). No. 8511 of 2021

¶16

5 THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

¶17

6THE MANAGER,
CANARA BANK (FORMERLY SYNDICATE BANK), KP
X/218, VALIYATH PLAZA, NH-47, OPPOSITE TO
K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690
518.

¶18

BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.RAJA KANNAN

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SMT.PREETHA.K.K., SR.GP

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

-3-

¶23

W.P.(C). No. 8511 of 2021

¶24

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶25

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2021

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner is the Director of Centre for Advanced Computer Education. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is an authorized computer education centre of ER & DCI. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner institution was found having adequate facility to conduct courses like DCA, PGDCA and DEO. The petitioner institution was selected for imparting computer training to Scheduled Caste students under the above scheme during the year 2002-03. The notifications were issued inviting applications for qualified candidates. Ext.P1 is the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent. Based on the same, the 4^th respondent conducted interview and forwarded the list of selected candidates to the 3^rd

¶28

-4-

¶29

W.P.(C). No. 8511 of 2021

¶30

respondent. The 3^rd respondent forwarded the list of selected candidates to the 2^nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent accorded sanction to conduct DCA course for 41 students at a total cost of Rs.3,69,000/- and 75% of the course fee, i.e., 2,76,000/- was released to the petitioner along with the sanction order. Ext.P2 is the order dated 17.03.2003 issued by the 2^nd respondent. It is also the case of the petitioner that sanction was also accorded to conduct PGDCA course for 16 students at a total cost of Rs.3,72,000/- and 75% of the fee, i.e., 2,30,000/- was released at the time of sanctioning the course. A copy of the order dated 17.03.2003 issued by the 2^nd respondent is Ext.P3. Similar sanction was accorded to conduct DEO course for 100 students at a total cost of Rs.5,00,000/- and 75% of the fee, i.e., 3,75000/- was released to the

¶31

-5-

¶32

W.P.(C). No. 8511 of 2021

¶33

petitioner and Ext.P4 is the order. As per Ext.P2 to P4 the balance 25% of the course fee will be paid after successful completion of the course report of the District Development Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that students are also eligible for Rs.315/per month as stipend for the entire duration of the course. According to the petitioner, 37 students completed DCA course, received hall ticket and appeared for examination. 13 students completed the PGDCA course, received hall ticket and appeared for examination. 97 students completed DEO course, received hall ticket and appeared for examination. Ext.P5 is the forwarding letter of the list of students who received hall tickets for the above course certified by the 4^th respondent and forwarded to the 3^rd respondent. It is submitted by the petitioner that the courses were successfully conducted and

¶34

-6-

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 8511 of 2021

¶36

completed in the year 2004. It is the case of the petitioner that 37 students completed DCA course, 13 students completed PGDCA course and 97 students completed DEO course. The 4^th respondent verified the same and forwarded it to the 3^rd respondent with recommendation for payment of balance 25% of the course fee as per Ext.P5. The total amount of Rs.2,39,250/- was due to the petitioner towards the balance 25% of the course fee payable on successful completion of the course. It is the case of the petitioner that even though the courses were completed as early as in June 2004, the balance 25% was not paid to the petitioner. The petitioner made several enquiries and submitted representation and then it was told that a vigilance enquiry is pending and the balance 25% will be released on completion of the enquiry. Since the balance amount was not

¶37

-7-

¶38

W.P.(C). No. 8511 of 2021

¶39

paid till 2010, he approached this Court and as per Ext.P6 judgment, this Court directed the 2^nd respondent herein to consider the petitioner’s request for balance course fee and if any amount is found payable, the same shall be disbursed on furnishing bank guarantee. It is also stated that the bank guarantee is to be renewed till a vigilance case registered is completed. It is submitted by the petitioner that pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P7 order disbursing 1,86,600/to the petitioner on condition to furnish the bank guarantee and renew the same till the finalisation of the vigilance enquiry pending in the matter. It is submitted that pursuant to Ext.P7 order, the petitioner kept the above amount in 6^th respondent Bank as guarantee. Ext.P8 is the bank guarantee details. The 6^th respondent Bank renewed Ext.P8 bank

¶40

-8-

¶41

W.P.(C). No. 8511 of 2021

¶42

guarantee every year on getting requisition for the same from the 2^nd respondent.

¶43

According to the petitioner, the Vigilance has not completed the enquiry for about 18 years. The counsel submitted that in similar case, as per Ext.P10 judgment, this Court directed to disburse the balance fee without insisting bank guarantee. The counsel also submitted that it will be an injustice to keep the bank guarantee indefinitely.

¶44

3.The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that in Ext.P6 judgment, it is clearly stated that the release of the amount is subject to the furnishing of bank guarantee and on renewing the same till the vigilance case is completed and therefore, the petitioner is bound to renew the bank guarantee till the vigilance case is completed. But the

¶45

-9-

¶46

W.P.(C). No. 8511 of 2021

¶47

Government Pleader conceded that originally the vigilance case was referred and a refer report was submitted before the competent court. But the competent court refused to accept the refer report and directed the vigilance to conduct a further investigation and the further investigation is going on even now.

¶48

I considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Government Pleader. Ext.P6 judgment was delivered by this Court on 12.04.2011. Now 10 years elapsed after Ext.P6 judgment. Moreover, the vigilance case is pending for the last 18 years. Admittedly, the vigilance submitted a refer report before the court concerned originally and subsequently ordered further investigation and further investigation is going on. I perused Ext.P10 judgment passed by this Court in which there is no insistence for

¶49

-10-

¶50

W.P.(C). No. 8511 of 2021

¶51

bank guarantee for the release of amount in similar circumstances. In such circumstances, according to me, there can be a direction to release the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner on condition that the petitioner execute a simple bond.

¶52

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

¶53

Respondents 1 to 4 shall not insist further

¶54

renewal of bank guarantee for the amount ordered to be disbursed as per Ext.P7.

¶55

Respondents 1 to 4 are free to direct the

¶56

petitioner to execute a simple bond before releasing the bank guarantee.

¶57

sd/-

¶58

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGE

das

-11-

W.P.(C). No. 8511 of 2021

¶63

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8511/2021

¶64

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶65

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.3.2003` `SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AUTHORIZING` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO CONDUCT` `INTERVIEW FOR SELECTING THE CANDIDATES` `FOR THE COMPUTER TRAINING COURSES`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.3.2003` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ACCORDING` `SANCTION TO CONDUCT DCA COURSE FOR 41` `STUDENTS`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.3.2003` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ACCORDING` `SANCTION TO CONDUCT P.G.D.C.A COURSE` `FOR 16 STUDENTS`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.3.2003` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ACCORDING` `SANCTION TO CONDUCT D.E.O COURSE FOR` `100 STUDENTS`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER OF` `THE LIST OF STUDENTS WHO RECEIVED THE` `HALL TICKETS FOR THE ABOVE COURSES` `CERTIFIED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND` `FORWARDED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT` `RECOMMENDING PAYMENT FOR THE BALANCE` `25% OF THE COURSE FEE DATED 24.6.2004`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `12.4.2011 IN WPC NO 35600/2010`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.11.2011` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE DATED` `3.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE SYNDICATE BANK` `IN THIS REGARD`

¶66

-12-

¶67

W.P.(C). No. 8511 of 2021

¶68

EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION FOR
RENEWAL OF THE BANK GUARANTEE ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 15.9.2020 TO
THE BANK
EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
17.12.2019 IN WPC NO 34620/2011

J. Nisamudeen, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Nisamudeen, 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

Saneesh K. @ Saneesh Kalathil Vs Indusind Bank

Malayil Samad Vs General Manager

A.V. Antony, Vs Kerala State Water Authority

Bose Thomas Vs Kerala State Sports Council

Dr.Sidharadhan K. Vs State of Kerala

R.Thyagarajan Vs the Kerala Advocates Clerks Welfare Fund