Disposed

Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Nov 2021WP(C)/9687/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging orders related to sand mining. The Court did not determine the case on merits but directed the first respondent to consider a representation within three months while providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P10 within three months and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing final orders.

Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 25TH KARTHIKA,

¶4

1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9687 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD
RAMKY HOUSE, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, SUMAJI GUDA,
HYDERABAD 500 082
PRESENTLY RAMKY GRANDIOSE, 15TH FLOOR, SY
NO.136/2 AND 4, GACHIBOWLI, HYDERABAD 500 032
REP.BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.
VISHWANATHAN ARANGATH.

¶8

BY ADVS.
K.BABU THOMAS
MARYKUTTY BABU

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033

¶12

3 THE CHEIF ENGINEER PROJECT I, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE 673 005

¶13

4 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER IRRIGATION CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR 680 022

¶14

5 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER IRRIGATION CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHEMUBKAVU, THRISSUR 680 022

¶15

-2-

¶16

W.P.(C). No. 9687 of 2021

¶17

6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHAMARAVATTOM PROJECT DIVISION, ESWARAMANGALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 670 573

¶18

7 THE CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL AGS OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶19

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

-3-

¶24

W.P.(C). No. 9687 of 2021

¶25

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.9687 of 2021

¶27

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2021

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶30

“i) issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, or order, or direction to the respondents calling for the records of the case leading upto Exhibit P12 and quash Exhibits P4, P6 to P8.

¶31

ii) issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, or order, or direction to the 7^th respondent, requiring to forthwith consider and pass orders on Exhibit P10, to withdraw, cancel, recall and reverse Exhibit P4 within a time stipulated by this Hon.Court on affording an opportunity of being heard, duly considering the tender conditions requiring to quote rates for each item based on the specifications and unit of measurement in the tender schedule and the cost of labour for mining sand from the river bed, lorry transportation of sand by 2 km lead, 1000m head load lead, seiving, segregation, classification and grading charge at

¶32

-4-

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 9687 of 2021

¶34

Rs.675/cum.

¶35

iii) issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, or order, or direction to the respondents 1 to 6 requiring to forthwith effect payment of Exhibit P5 and P9 bills for Rs.1,66,87,943/- and Rs.1,26,93,210/- respectively totaling to Rs.2,93,81,153/- or within a time stipulated by this Hon.court, together with interest at 12% /annum from the respective date of presentation of the same till payment.

¶36

iv) declare that Exhibit P4 prepared in utter disregard of the terms and conditions in Exhibit P1 behind the back of the petitioner, without notice and opportunity of being heard, in gross violation of principles of natural justice, with perverse observation of undue benefit of Rs.2.43 crores to the petitioner in allowing to quarry sand from Chamravattam in Bharathapuzha, from the source of supply of sand specified in the agreement, is without

¶37

illegal, perverse, jurisdiction, unauthorized, ultra virus, indefensible, invalid and null and void ab initio and non est.

¶38

-5-

¶39

W.P.(C). No. 9687 of 2021

¶40

v) grant such other relief this Hon.Court may deem, proper, just, equitable and necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs incurred by the petitioner in these proceedings.”

¶41

Today, when the matter came up for consideration, even

¶42

though the counsel for the petitioner argued in detail, she confined her prayer that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P10 representation within a time frame.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶44

After hearing both sides, I think there can be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P10 within a time frame. I

¶45

make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit and the 1^st respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in Ext.P10.

¶46

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following

¶47

manner:

¶48

-6-

¶49

W.P.(C). No. 9687 of 2021

¶50

The 1^st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P10 and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶51

Before passing final orders in Ext.P10, the 1^st respondent will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶52

sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶53

das

¶54

-7-

¶55

W.P.(C). No. 9687 of 2021

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9687/2021

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶58

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF` `AGREEMENT`	`RELEVANT PORTION OF THE`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `COLLECTOR`	`THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT.`	`LETTER OF THE 6TH`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `REPORT NO.4`	`RELEVANT PORTION OF`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF` `BILL FOR RS.`	`RELEVANT PORTION OF THE` `1,66,87,943.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT D`	`LETTER OF THE FIRST` `IRECTING ILLEGAL RECOVERY.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT.`	`LETTER OF THE 4TH`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT,` `CRORES.`	`LETTER OF THE 6TH` `RAISING CLAIM FOR RS. 2.43`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF` `FOR RS. 1,26`	`RELEVANT PORTION OF BILL` `,93,210/-`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF` `PETITIONER.`	`REPRESENTATION OF THE`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT.`	`LETTER OF THE 6TH`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`TRUE COPY OF` `PETITIONER.`	`THE REPLY OF THE`

Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Sreejith, Vs the Union of India

All Kerala Homeopathic Association Vs the Union of India

P.Ebrahim Vs the Union of India

K.M. Rafeeque Vs the Secretary

M/S Eminent Security Vs Govt.of India & Another

K.Padmanabhan Vs District Collector, Kozhikode & Others