Disposed

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Sericulture Co-Op. Society Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Mar 2022RP/147/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed review petitions filed against an order directing fresh feasibility reports for SERIFED revival. The Court held that significant market changes over six years mandated new reports, so no error warranted review.

What did the court decide?

Review petition was dismissed; original order directing fresh feasibility report remains.

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Sericulture Co-Op. Society… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

RP NO. 147 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2022 IN WP(C)

¶7

40553/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶9

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK SERICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.KV. IND (T) 309, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECREARY.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

3 FINANCE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

4 KERALA STATE SERICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE APEX SOCIETY LTD., NO.KVIND 2 (SERIFED), T.C.16/1709(2), ULLOOR LANE, DPI JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

RP Nos.147 & 155 of 2022

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SC FOR SERIFED

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.155/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

RP Nos.147 & 155 of 2022

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶25

MONDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶26

RP NO. 155 OF 2022

¶27

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2022 IN WP(C) 40618/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶28

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶29

NEYYATTINKARA TALUK SERICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.K.V.IND(T) 314, BP III/820, KATTAKADA ROAD, BALARAMAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 509, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶30

BY ADVS. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

¶31

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶32

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶33

2 DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶34

3 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶35

RP Nos.147 & 155 of 2022

¶36

: 4 :

¶37

4 THE KERALA STATE SERICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE APEX SOCIETY LTD., NO.K.V.IND 2, (SERIFED), T.C.NO.16/1709(2), ULLOOR LANE, DPI JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶38

5 CENTRAL SILK BOARD, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 100FT RING ROAD, BTM LAY OUT, MADIWALA, BANGALORE - 560 068, KARNATAKA-REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶39

6 UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 542A, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶40

7 THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODU, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶41

SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHRI HARI RAO, CGC SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SC FOR SERIFED

¶42

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.147/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

RP Nos.147 & 155 of 2022

: 5 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

R.P. No.147 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.40553 of 2016 and R.P. No.155 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.40618 of 2016

¶48

Dated this the 28^th day of March, 2022

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶51

W.P.(C) Nos.35173, 40553 and 40618 of 2016,

¶52

8550 of 2017 and 15961 of 2020 were filed by the respective petitioners seeking revival of the Kerala State Sericulture Co-operative Apex Society Limited (SERIFED). This Court, after considering the entire facts of the case, disposed of the afore writ petitions along with W.P.(C) No.35303 of 2016 with

¶53

the following orders and directions:

¶54

For all the afore reasons, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following orders and directions:

¶55

(1) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to cause appropriate enquiry and investigation into the

¶56

RP Nos.147 & 155 of 2022

¶57

: 6 :

¶58

action of the nominated Board of Directors of the SERIFED in recruiting about 300 employees in SERIFED in violation of law and also into the action of the Government in absorbing 271 employees illegally recruited in SERIFED into the Government Services and in the services of Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board and take appropriate action based on such enquiry/ investigation, in accordance with law;

¶59

(2) The impugned Ext.P14 order dated 07.01.2017 in W.P.(C) No.35173/2016 and Ext.P4 order dated 08.05.2020 in W.P.(C) No.15961/2020 are quashed;

¶60

(3) The Central Silk Board, SERIFED and the Director of Handlooms and Textiles are directed to nominate their representative to the ThreeMember Committee decided to be formed in the meeting convened by the Chief Secretary on 05.07.2017 and communicate the nominations to the Chief Secretary forthwith;

¶61

(4) The Three-Member Committee shall formulate a fresh Project Report on the feasibility of revival of SERIFED, Post-Cocoon Sector and Silk Weaving in Kerala, and submit the same to the 1^st respondent within a period of four months;

¶62

(5) Respondents 1 and 2 (in W.P.(C) No.35173/2016) shall take a final decision on the revival of SERIFED, Post-Cocoon Sector and Silk Weaving in Kerala, within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of the Project Report;

¶63

(6) The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.35303/2016 are permitted to get Ext.P1 Award in I.D. No.58/99 of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha executed/implemented, invoking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶64

RP Nos.147 & 155 of 2022

¶65

: 7 :

¶66

The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.40618 and 40553 of 2016 have filed the review petitions.

¶67

The review petitioners argued that this Court has extensively considered the arguments of the parties and found that the stand of the respondents was a u-turn from the stand so far taken by them. However, directions (3) to (5) in paragraph 71 of the judgment give handle to the Government to ignore earlier Government Orders, admission of the Government in the counter affidavit and Ext.P8 Government Order. The judgment of this Court therefore would cause prejudice and hardship to the cause of the petitioners.

¶68

The learned counsel on either side argued that no useful purpose will be served by a fresh project report on the feasibility of revival of SERIFED, Post-Cocoon Sector and Silk Weaving in Kerala. It was not shown before this Court at any round of litigation that the earlier feasibility project report was in any way defective. In the circumstances, the judgment is liable to be reviewed and direction need to be

¶69

RP Nos.147 & 155 of 2022

¶70

: 8 :

¶71

given to the respondents to proceed on the basis of the earlier feasibility report.

¶72

I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶73

The direction of this Court is to formulate a fresh project report on the feasibility of revival of SERIFED, Post-Cocoon Sector and Silk Weaving in Kerala and take a final decision on the revival of SERIFED, Post-Cocoon Sector and Silk Weaving in Kerala. The existing Ext.P6 Feasibility Report of the Silk Board drafted after conducting detailed study, is dated 30.03.2015.

¶74

The directions of this Court relate to revival of a commercial project in public interest. As the available Feasibility Report is of the year 2015 and since six years have lapsed thereafter, this Court was of the view that a fresh project report on the feasibility of revival would be required, as the fact situations and market conditions as existed in the year 2015 may not be the same as available

¶75

RP Nos.147 & 155 of 2022

¶76

: 9 :

¶77

now. The direction to have a fresh project report was issued

¶78

due to the afore reason.

¶79

This Court therefore do not find any error apparent

¶80

on the face of the records, warranting interference in review.

¶81

The review petitions therefore fail and they are consequently

¶82

dismissed.

¶83

Sd/-

¶84

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶85

aks/25.03.2022

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Sericulture Co-Op. Society Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Sericulture Co-Op. Society Ltd. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sebastian Thomas Chiramel Vs State Bank of India SBI

Saleema Vs Arun Kumar B.

Ragsippi v.I., Vs State of Kerala

Neyyattinkara Taluk Sericulture Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Kumarkom Aquaserene Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation

Mansoorali Vs the Administrator