Disposed

Suresh Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2022WP(C)/3333/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the enhancement of the solvency amount for A Class Forest contractors from ₹75,000 to ₹15 lakhs. The court declined to decide the merit but directed the authority to consider a representation within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation within ten days; authorities directed to pass orders within one month.

Suresh Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 26TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3333 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SURESH MATHEW, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.K.M.MATHEW, NEDUMCHIRAYIL HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT.P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686006.

¶8

BY ADV M.C.JOHN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶11

2 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS & HEAD OF FOREST FORCE, FOREST HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014.

¶12

3 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS(F,B & A), FOREST HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶13

4 THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, HIGH RANGE CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686006.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.SANGEETH C.U., GOVERNMENT PLEADER (APPEARS) R1-4 BY SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C)No.3333/2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2022

¶20

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶21

“(i) Call for the records relating to Exts.P6 and P7 and issue a writ of certiorari quashing Clause 2.4.8.1 in Ext.P7 in so far as it relates to the petitioner as a Contractor for the Tiber operations under the respondents. (ii) Declare that the hike made in the amount of Bank Guarantee from ₹75,000/- to 15 lakhs is arbitrary₹ and unjust and unsustainable.

¶22

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4^th respondent to take up Ext.P5 application and pass orders as per Ext.P1 uninfluenced by the integration as per Ext.P7.

¶23

(iv) Direct the 4^th respondent not to insist for Bank guarantee of ₹15 lakhs from petitioner as a condition for renewal of registration Card for 2022-23 period.”

¶24

2. The petitioner is an A class Forest contractor

¶25

registered with the Government. According to the petitioner,

¶26

the registration is renewed from time to time and it is valid up

¶27

to 31.03.2022. The Government was insisting for a Solvency

¶28

WP(C)No.3333/2022

¶29

¶30

Certificate from the Revenue Department for an amount of ₹75,000/- for registration, as per Ext.P1 Government Order issued in the year 1982. It is the case of the petitioner that by Ext.P7 Government Order dated 06.05.2021, the solvency amount is enhanced to ₹15 lakhs in the place of ₹75,000/-. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 Government Order/guidelines insists payment of ₹2 lakhs for registration of A class contractors in the PWD Department. The enhancement of solvency amount from ₹75,000/- to ₹15 lakhs is unconscionable and without any basis and against the existing Government Orders as regards the other Departments, contends the petitioner.

¶31

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

¶32

The petitioner argues that the enhancement of solvency amount from ₹75,000/- to ₹15 lakhs is unconscionable and without any basis. Several other

¶33

¶34

¶35

contentions are also raised in the writ petition. But, I do not deem it necessary to consider those contentions at this stage. The petitioner can represent to the Government with his grievance and there can be a direction to the Government to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on it within a time frame. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶36

The petitioner is free to submit a representation narrating his grievances projected in this writ petition before the 1^st respondent within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

Once such a representation is received, the 1^st respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders on it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the representation, as the petitioner's license is to expire on 31.03.2022.

¶38

¶39

¶40

The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this

¶41

judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1^st

¶42

respondent.

¶43

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3333/2022

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.203/82/AD
	DATED 23.06.1982 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE A CLASS REGISTRATION NO.3/85 DATED 23.05.1985 ISSUED TO PETITIONER
Exhibit P2(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.HRC
	01/2012 DATED 01.10.2012 ISSUED TO PETITIONER
Exhibit P2(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.1/2013 DATED 08.10.2013 ISSUED TO PETITIONER
Exhibit P2(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL REGISTRATION CARD NO.C2-1499/12 DATED 24.04.2014 ISSUED TO PETITIONER
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF BANK GUARANTEE NO.0498 BG 00002019 DATED 16.07.2019 ISSUED BY SOUTH INDIAN BANK
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL REGISTRATION CARD NO.C2-1499/12 DATED 21.10.2020 ISSUED TO PETITIONER
Exhibit P4(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION RENEWAL CARD NO.C2-1499/12 DATED 26.04.2021 ISSUED TO PETITIONER
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS)NO.26/2017 DATED 20.05.2007 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.141/2021/F&WLD DATED 06.05.2021 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT.

¶50

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶51

ANNEXURE R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.01.2022 IN W.P.(C) 26328/2021.

Suresh Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Mathew 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

B.V.G. India Limited Vs State of Kerala

R.Shaji Vs the Branch Manager, P.B. Branch,State Bank of India

Chanthu Vs State of Kerala

Vinodini, Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Thiruvonam Enterprises Vs Chief Controller,Vssc

Shanavas V.P. Vs State of Kerala