Disposed

Saji M.Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Nov 2022WP(C)/21179/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a farmer challenging deductions in paddy quantity collected by SUPPLYCO. The court directed the 2nd respondent to ensure proper scientific quality analysis during future procurement to prevent unjust losses.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to ensure that proper and scientific quality analysis is done while procuring paddy from the petitioner and other farmers in future.

Saji M.Abraham Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 21179 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAJI M.ABRAHAM,
AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O ABRAHAM, MANIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
VILLONNI P.O., KOTTAYAM – 686 088.
BY ADV A.K.HARIDAS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
REP BY . SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM – 695 001.
2THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES-
CORPORATION (SUPPLYCO LTD.),
MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI -682 020,
REP. BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3MANAGING DIRECTOR,
THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES-
CORPORATION (SUPPLYCO LTD.),
MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI -682 020.
BY ADV MOLLY JACOB- SC
SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K. - GP

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO. 21179 OF 2022

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Dated this the 02^nd day of November, 2022

¶15

The petitioner is a farmer conducting paddy cultivation in ‘Pazottumakkeri Padashekharam’, situated within the limits of the Arpookara Krishi Bhavan. The 2^nd respondent had collected paddy from the Padashekaram on 23.05.2022. According to the petitioner even though his crop was in excellent condition, 44 k.g deducted from the measured quantity of 1551 Kgs. The petitioner grievance is regarding the manner in which the quality assessment is done by the officials of the SUPPLYCO and the unjust deductions made from the quantity measured.

¶16

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if proper quantity analysis is conducted by the officials, there will not be such huge deduction. The SUPPLYCO is bound to ensure that proper quality analysis is done by its officers, instead of deducting from the quantity measured, according to their whims and fancies.

¶17

3.Learned Standing Counsel for the SUPPLYCO submitted that proper quality analysis is being done by the officers. As per the agreement between the rice millers and the

¶18

WP(C) NO. 21179 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

SUPPLYCO, only 68% of the paddy supplied is being returned after milling. Therefore the SUPPLYCO unless strict quality analysis is done while procuring the paddy, the corporation will suffer huge loss.

¶21

In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the SUPPLYCO, the quantity analysis will be done in a scientific manner, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to ensure that proper and scientific quality analysis is done while procuring paddy from the petitioner and other farmers in future.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

V.G. ARUN JUDGE

¶24

¶25

WP(C) NO. 21179 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21179/2022

¶28

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-

¶29

Exhibit P1A TRUE RECEIPT OF COLLECTION OF PADDY CROPS
OF THE PETITIONER DATED 23.5.2022.
Exhibit P2A TRUE TOKEN RECEIPT OF PADDY CROPS OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 2.6.2022.
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.6.2022.

Saji M.Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saji M.Abraham 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

Sasikumar K.K. Vs the Kerala State Backward Class

Hamza v.P., Vs State of Kerala

Xxxxx Vs Child Welfare Committee

Sahadevan Vs the District Collector Thrissur

Sunder Builders Vs Chief Engineer (Nw)

Neville Xavier Vs the Regional Manager, State Bank of India