Disposed

R. Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2022WP(C)/6686/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a spice supplier, challenged arbitratory rejections by the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation citing victimisation and excessive penalties. The Court held this is a contractual dispute suitable for civil remedies and directed the Managing Director to consider the grievance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Managing Director of the second respondent.

R. Vijayakumar 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

TUESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1944

¶6

WP(C) NO. 6686 OF 2018

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

R. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 53, S/O.RAJAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, MARIAN SPICES, 8/1767, JAWAHAR ROAD, KOOVAPPADAM, MATTANCHERRY. BY ADVS. SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. A COMPANY OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE STATE OF KERALA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682020 AND REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

GP RIYAL DEVASSY SC ADV. MOLLY JACOB

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2022, THE COURT ON 06.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶15

-2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 06^th day of December, 2022

¶18

The petitioner is the proprietor of a

¶19

concern by name 'Marian Spices', doing business in supply of grains, pulses and spices. One among the prominent customers of the petitioner is the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (Supplyco)/second respondent. The business was started by the petitioner's father in the name and style M/s.AVK Traders. During that period, the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, alleging corruption and malpractice by the officers of the Supplyco and a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram. M/s.AVK Traders had obtained a decree for money against Supplyco

¶20

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶21

-3-

¶22

towards damages for the loss sustained due to illegal rejection of certain articles. According to the petitioner, the criminal prosecution at his instance and the civil court decree had made many senior officials his enemies. As a result, when the petitioner started conducting business in the name Marian Spices after his father’s death, these officers ganged up and prevented him from participating in the tenders. Thereby, the petitioner was denied contracts for supply of materials to the Corporation for 12 years. Even after the false complaints raised against the petitioner ended in his favour, he was not permitted to participate in the tenders. Ultimately, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.3846 of 2017 and obtained Ext.P4 judgment, directing the respondents to allow participation of the petitioner in the tender proceedings.

¶23

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶24

-4-

¶25

According to the petitioner, even after being allowed to participate in the tender proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4, in order to wreak vengeance, the officers and Quality Controllers (QCs) of the Supplyco are rejecting the articles supplied by the petitioner. In the writ petition, certain instances of such rejection are highlighted. According to the petitioner, the appeal provided against rejection is of no avail since, most of the members of the appeal committee are Senior Quality Controllers in the Supplyco, against whom the petitioner filed complaint before the Vigilance Court. As the illegal rejection at the last moment, based on totally unscientific and arbitrary sampling is causing huge monetary loss to the petitioner, the petitioner has put forth a suggestion that in case of rejection, the samples should be taken and sealed in the presence of the petitioner or his

¶26

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶27

-5-

¶28

representative and handed over to him or his agent and should also be sent to the Regional Analytical Laboratory (RAL) for confirming the quality of the item. If the RAL's report reveals that the item satisfies the FSSAI Standards, stringent action should be taken against the officers responsible for the illegal rejection. As the suggestions and representations evoked no response, the writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

¶29

“(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent Corporation to accept the load supplied by the petitioner by Ext.P4 series and to release the payment of the bill amount thereof forthwith. (ii) If at all this Hon'ble Court finds

¶30

it not feasible to grant relief No.(i), to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent Corporation to allow the petitioner to take back the rejected items without imposing storage charges and non-supply penalty.

¶31

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction

¶32

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶33

-6-

¶34

for investigation by crime branch of the first respondent or any other appropriate independent agency as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper as to how the fourth respondent examined the samples, what are all the equipments available in each depots of the second respondent for examining the samples, what are all aspects could be unearthed by a naked eye examination, whether the quality analysts are impartial in examinations of the loads supplied by all the suppliers etc.”

¶35

Adv.N.M.Madhu, learned Counsel for the

¶36

petitioner, extensively referred to various documents produced along with the writ petition in an attempt to prove that the rejections are ill-motivated. It is pointed out that even when the same item, purchased

¶37

from the same trader, is supplied at different depots of the Corporation, some depots accept the supply while some depots reject it. It is submitted that, in some

¶38

instances, supply made by the petitioner is rejected even without unloading the item from

¶39

the lorry. Moreover, the inspection and

¶40

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶41

-7-

¶42

rejection of supply is done at the last moment and once the article is rejected, it has to be replaced by the supplier. Each day's delay in replacing the rejected supply will result in 0.5% of the total value of the delayed quantity being cut off as a penalty. Rejection at the last minute therefore entails substantial loss to the supplier, as it will take some days to source and supply fresh stock.

¶43

Although the tender condition

¶44

provides for an appeal against the rejection,

¶45

the appeal serve any purpose, since the appellate body consists of three senior most QCs of the Supplyco and two outside QCs. Therefore, even if an appeal is preferred, the decision of the majority, who are QCs from the Supplyco, will prevail. It is submitted that frequent rejection of supplies has resulted in the petitioner losing his credibility among merchants from whom he is

¶46

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶47

-8-

¶48

purchasing the articles. Further, additional charges are incurred for taking back the rejected item and supplying fresh load, since substantial amount is to be paid towards extra freight charges. It is contended that the respondents cannot rely on the unconscionable conditions in the tender notification and the Supplyco Quality Manual for rejecting the articles supplied by the petitioner. The Supplyco being an 'authority' falling within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot act in an arbitrary and indiscriminate manner.

¶49

Learned Standing Counsel raised preliminary objection as to maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the relationship between the parties being purely contractual in nature, the dispute cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226. The allegation regarding victimisation and purposeful rejection of supplies is refuted. It is submitted that the petitioner was the

¶50

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶51

-9-

¶52

Secretary of the Pulses and Spices Suppliers Association, a powerful cartel of suppliers which was dictating terms at the Supplyco. The measures taken by the then CMD to destroy the cartel and facilitate entry of new suppliers was the provocation for filing false complaints before the Special Court and the Superintendent of Vigilance and AntiCorruption Bureau. It is submitted that the petitioner having admitted that his role in the supply of articles is confined to participating in the tender and sourcing the articles from out of State traders and ensuring delivery of the articles to the Supplyco depots, the petitioner's claim of having supplied good quality articles cannot be countenanced as he is not even seeing the product before its delivery at the depots. The contention regarding victimisation is countered by pointing out that the articles supplied by the petitioner were rejected only

¶53

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶54

-10-

¶55

on a few occasions, and major chunks of his supply was accepted and payment effected. It is submitted that, except the petitioner, no other supplier has raised any complaint regarding the procedure adopted by the Supplyco for sampling and analysing the quality of articles supplied. The procedure for sampling and analysis of the articles is laid down in the tender conditions as well as the Supplyco Quality Manual. As per the tender conditions, the quality of articles supplied should conform to the FSSAI standards and should also satisfy the Supplyco's specifications. Therefore, even if the FSSAI standards are satisfied, supply can be rejected if it does not conform to the Supplyco specifications. In this regard attention is drawn to Clause 9(a) of the

¶56

tender conditions, wherein it is stated that if the quality of an item deviates from the quality specification/refraction/sample in

¶57

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶58

-11-

¶59

the schedule in the tender form, the Corporation will reject the stock. It is contended that the petitioner having

¶60

participated in the tenders fully knowing that the first respondent will reject items

¶61

which do not satisfy the Supplyco

¶62

specifications, cannot later turn around and challenge such conditions as unconscionable. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection, he has the remedy of approaching the appeal committee. The allegation that the QCs are inimical towards the petitioner and

¶63

the appellate remedy is not efficacious, are factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. Most of the QCs against whom the petitioner had raised allegations have retired from the service of Supplyco. Moreover, the Depot Managers, who analyse

¶64

the samples at the first instance, are deputation staff from the Civil Supplies Department. The quorum of the appeal

¶65

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶66

-12-

¶67

committee being five out of eight members, even if the petitioner raises an allegation of bias against one of the members, such member can be substituted with another member. More importantly, there is no compulsion on the petitioner to participate in the tenders.

¶68

raised, I deem it appropriate to consider the relevant clauses in the tender document and the Supplyco Quality Manual. The procedure for inspection of stock prescribed in Clause 9.a of the tender document reads as follows;

¶69

of the item supplied as per the purchase order issued by the Corporation should conform to Supplyo prescribed) specification and it should be in accordance with Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 Rules/Regulations 2011. Samples would be drawn from the commodities supplied in the presence of supplier/their representative/independent witnesses or by so as to make them (suppliers) responsible

¶70

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶71

-13-

¶72

for all consequences under prevailing rules and regulations. Such stocks shall not be delivered to depots till the outcome of the analysis reports. These stocks will be retained separately at the receiving centres at the risk and cost of concerned supplier. Concerned supplier will be responsible for any deterioration/damage of such stocks or weight loss there of in the custody of Supplyco. The stock will be inspected on delivery at the destination by the representatives of the Corporation. Depot. Manager will be primarily responsible for consignment acceptance with the assistance of JM (M) or JM (QA). If the quality deviates from the quality specification/refraction / sample as per Schedule I A, B, C (i, ii & iii), D (i, ii, ili & iv) and E series in the tender form, the Corporation will reject the stock and the seller shall be deemed to have willfully neglected to deliver the goods according to the contract and the tenderer will be likely to be blacklisted from participating in any tender of Supplyco for the next two years. The load will be accepted in the Depot only if it is accompanied with Original Bill of the Supper and warrantee in Form VI A.

¶73

There may be super check on the quality of stock supplied at the depots by the Head

¶74

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶75

-14-

¶76

Office and/ or by a contracted outside agency at random as per a sampling method. If the stock accepted/rejected on the super inspection is found against the tender conditions and specifications of quality, appropriate action will be taken including black listing for two years, forfeiture of Security Deposit and EMD, damage recovery, etc. The suppliers who are aggrieved by the rejection of stock supplied by them can prefer an appeal before the Appellate Committee in the head office by remitting a fee of Rs.2500/-. Either way of D.D. favouring Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation payable at Ernakulam or RTGS to Bank Account, The Federal Bank Ltd A/C No.10580200013240 (IFSC No.FDRL0001058). In case appeal is allowed Rs.2500/- will be refunded to the supplier.

¶77

Storage charges on not accepted stock shall be charged @ Rs.5/- per bag per day until the period of removal after giving grace period of 5 days from the date of intimation of non acceptance over phone or through GRS copy from the Depot. If within 12 Days the entire rejected stock is not removed by the supplier from the Depot, the Depot Manager will be at liberty to destroy/ dispose the stock at the risk and cost of the supplier and the expense will be deducted from the security deposit and

¶78

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶79

-15-

¶80

other payments due to the supplier.

¶81

9.b. Supply commodities in bulk through sealed containers/Truck. "The suppliers are free to supply commoditics in bulk through sealed containers or truck with valid quality certification from recognized or reputed NABL accredited laboratories. In such cases rejection of the commodities, if any by, any depot would be thoroughly probed as chances of rejection are eliminated on supply in the above manner".

¶82

The Supplyco Quality Manual contains elaborate procedure for testing and sampling of supplied items. The Manual also provides for a seven-tier system for quality assurance. The relevant portion of the Manual is extracted hereunder;

¶83

“ THE SEVEN-TIER SYSTEM OF QUALITY

¶84

ASSURANCE IN SUPPLYCO

¶85

The quality assurance system envisaged in Supplyco is a seven-tier system with participation of all stakeholders. This system is expected to ensure participation of all the staff and integrating various processes to assure quality Various measures are to be timely

¶86

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶87

-16-

¶88

formulated to measure feedbacks and functioning of different tiers and steps have to be taken to reinforce and strengthen participation of all the staff giving emphasis to teamwork in Quality Assurance. The Appellate Authority in Quality Assurance and HOMC will constantly strive to improve the processes of Quality Assurance in Supplyco

¶89

First Tier :

¶90

This tier consists of all staff of Supplyco who purchases their requirements from Supplyco outlets. A discount of 5% is allowed to all staff to ensure the participation of all staff in this quality assurance endeavor. All staff who purchase from Supplyco outlets must give a feed back to the members of depot management committee. Feedback must be in the customer feedback form. It is presumed that when a staff has to consume an item, he or she will ensure that its quality is acceptable and thus all staff will contribute to quality assurance at shop and depot levels.

¶91

Second Tier :

¶92

The second tier consist of depot manager together with stock custodian in depots and shop manager (officer-in-charge) in case of outlets, who has the primary responsibility to accept or reject the

¶93

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶94

-17-

¶95

stock on the question of quality, packing, labeling

¶96

Third Tier:

¶97

This tier is the Quality Assurance Committee. It consists of the Depot manager, JM (Marketing) and JM (QA). QAC will meet whenever the depot manager /shop manager has a doubt in quality. Decision of QAC will be final in case of acceptance or rejection. QAC will verify the product quality at the depots also in every fortnight.

¶98

Fourth Tier :

¶99

The fourth tier consists of Retailers Quality Watch Committee constituted in each depot. The members of this committee will check the quality of all stocks in Depots with an eye on consumer preferences, customer feedback and saleability. The depot manager and Stock custodian use the observations of this committee to ensure product quality.

¶100

Fifth Tier :

¶101

Fifth tier consists of Appellate Authority and this committee decides on the appeal from suppliers, consumers or any member of QAC or DMC.

¶102

Sixth Tier :

¶103

Sixth tier is the super check at random by external agencies. The HOMC will decide periodically to have a super check

¶104

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶105

-18-

¶106

of some depots/items selected at random.

¶107

The responsible person /firm who is doing the super check is also decided by HOMC.

¶108

They will verify the effective implementation of quality manual and quality specifications in depots and outlets.

¶109

Seventh Tier :

¶110

This tier of the quality assurance programme is the detailed contract/agreement with supplier relating to quality specifications, warranty, replacement guarantee, payment to supplier, vendor education etc.

¶111

Being relevant, the procedure for testing

¶112

prescribed in the Manual is also extracted hereunder for easy reference;

¶113

Assistant Manager/Custodian

¶114

7.5.1.a Percentage of moisture

¶115

Equipments required: Moisture meter INDOSAW intelligent digital moisture testing machine (Agro model).

¶116

Method of finding moisture using the moisture meter is given in the annexure 2.

¶117

7.5.1.b Uniformity of size:

¶118

Method 1:

¶119

Using vernier calipers or scale, size of a few grains or pods can be assessed and that can be compared with the whole sample to arrive at the

¶120

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶121

-19-

¶122

uniformity of the size of the commodity.

¶123

Once all the depots are equipped with sieves the following methods shall be practiced.

¶124

Clean the sieve. From the Laboratory sample, 200gms of the grains are taken in the sieve. The retention of the grains in the stipulated Sieves is noted. The Sieve sizes and the minimum percent of retention required are given below. Clean the sieve and keep it safely after use.

¶125

Sl.No	Commodity	Sieve Size	Min per cent of retention required
1	Greengram	3.0 mm	95%
2	Bengal gram Bold	6.0 mm	90%
3	Cow Pea	5.0 mm	90%
4	Split green gram	2.5 mm	90%
5	Black gram washed	3.0 mm	95%
6	Split black gram	3.0 mm	95%
7	Split red gram	5.0 mm	95%
8	Split Peas	5.0 mm	90%
9	Chillies	5.0 cms (measured using scale)	20% of the pods less than 5.0 cm length is allowed
10	Coriander	5.0 mm	Max.10% to be retained
11	Cuminseed	No size specified
12	Fenugreek	No size specified
13	Mustard	2.0 mm	90.00%

¶126

7.5.1.c Uniformity of Colour:

¶127

Virtual samples of pulses, grains and spices are provided in schedule 1E of the tender wizard in the website of supplyco.

¶128

Method:

¶129

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶130

-20-

¶131

The uniformity in colour of a sample is found by comparing with virtual sample. For example, when a load of Greengram is received, after sampling its colour uniformity is compared with that of the virtual samples and inference is recorded.”

¶132

From a conjoint reading of the above provisions, it is evident that the quality specification of the Supplyco is not based on the FSSAI Standards alone. While FSSAI standards are intended to ensure availability

¶133

of safe and wholesome food for human consumption, the Supplyco parameters insist on saleablity, consumer preference and appearance. The insistence on such quality parameters cannot be termed as imposition of unconscionable conditions. There is also

¶134

merit in the contention that, having participated in the tender, the petitioner cannot challenge the quality prescription in

¶135

the tender document. As held in Joshi

¶136

Technologies International Inc. v.Union of

¶137

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶138

-21-

¶139

India [( 2015) 7 SCC 728] , occurrence of commercial difficulty, inconvenience or hardship in performance of conditions agreed to in the contract does not justify noncompliance of the terms of the contract, which the party had accepted with open eyes. Moreover, it is settled law that judicial review in contractual matters is very limited and the parties have to resort to civil remedies unless extraordinary circumstances are made out.

¶140

The petitioner has a contention

¶141

that, whenever an article supplied by him is rejected, the sample should be collected in his presence and sent for analysis. As noted above, the Supplyco can reject articles even for reasons other than failure to meet the FSSAI standards. The Regional Analytical Laboratories are not equipped only for analysing whether the article satisfies the quality specifications in the FSSAI

¶142

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶143

-22-

¶144

Regulations. Therefore, if an article is rejected for failure to satisfy the Supplyco specifications like size, colour and smell, no purpose will be achieved by the sample being sent for analysis to the Regional Analytical Laboratory. In cases where the article is rejected for not meeting the FSSAI standards, the appeal committee is empowered to send article for analysis. In my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot refuse to avail the appellate remedy by alleging that the appellate committee members

¶145

are inimical towards him. If at all any member of the appeal committee figures as accused in the complaint filed by the petitioner, such member can be substituted with another.

¶146

Having held so, I find merit in the petitioner's contention that rejection of articles at last moment will cause substantial loss to the supplier. This is an

¶147

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶148

-23-

¶149

aspect which the Managing Director of the Supplyco is bound to address and take remedial measures. The other allegations raised by the petitioner are also matters

¶150

which the Managing Director ought to consider. The petitioner cannot attribute malice to the present Managing Director or the Board of the Supplco merely for the reason that he had filed complaints against some officials at an earlier point of time. Therefore, despite the assertive submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I have no hesitation to hold that it is for the Managing Director of the Supplyco to consider the petitioner's grievance and take appropriate decision.

¶151

In the result, the writ petition is

¶152

disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the

¶153

Managing Director of the second respondent. If such representation is filed within one

¶154

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶155

-24-

¶156

month, the same shall be considered and appropriate decision taken within two months.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

Scl/

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶162

-25-

¶163

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6686/2018

¶164

PETITIO EXHIBIT	NER EXHIB P1-	ITS TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2005 IN CMP.NO.602/2005.
EXHIBIT	P2(A)-	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17/12/2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT	P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE JUDGMENT (WITHOUT APPENDIX) IN O.S.NO.39/2008 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT	P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/02/2017 IN WP(C)NO.3846/2017.
EXHIBIT	P5-	TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER CONDITIONS DATED 22/01/2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED.
EXHIBIT	P6-	TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER NO.20749 DATED 24/07/2017.
EXHIBIT	P6(A)-	TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 03/08/2017 ISSUED BY THE VELMURUGAN & COMPANY.
EXHIBIT	P6(B)-	TRUE COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO NEDUMANGAD DEPOT.
EXHIBIT	P6(C)-	TRUE COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO ATTINGAL DEPOT.
EXHIBIT	P6(D)-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF REJECTION ISSUED BY THE ATTINGAL DEPOT.
EXHIBIT	P6(E)-	TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 09/08/2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO WADAKKANCHERRY DEPOT.
EXHIBIT	P6(F)-	TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT DETAILS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM NEDUMANGAD AND WADAKKANCHERRY.
EXHIBIT	P7-	TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER NO.21626 DATED 09/01/2018.
EXHIBIT	P7(A)-	TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 26/01/2018 ISSUED BY THE K.G.B.TRADING

¶165

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶166

-26-

¶167

EXHIBIT	P7(B)-	CORPORATION. TRUE COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO KOCHI DEPOT.
EXHIBIT	P7(C)-	TRUE COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO MAVELIKARA DEPOT.
EXHIBIT	P7(D)-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF REJECTION ISSUED BY THE KOCHI DEPOT.
EXHIBIT	P8-	TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER BEARING NO.21086 DATED 23/09/2017.
EXHIBIT	P8(A)-	TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 11/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO MANNARKKAD DEPOT.
EXHIBIT	P8(B)-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF REJECTION DATED 26/10/2017.
EXHIBIT	P8(C)-	TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT DETAILS.
EXHIBIT	P9-	TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 22/08/2017 FROM KANHANGAD DEPOT.
EXHIBIT	P10-	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL.
EXHIBIT	P11-	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 18/07/2017.
EXHIBIT	P12-	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 22/01/2018.
EXHIBIT	P12(A)-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEPOT MANAGER, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT	P12(B)-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P12.
EXHIBIT	P13:	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 2.6.20063 IN OP NO.14879/2003.
EXHIBIT	P14:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND THE DECISION OF ANALYSIS REPORT OF THE APPEAL COMMITTEE.
RESPOND	ENT EXHIB	ITS
Exhibit	R2(i)	PHOTO COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED 31- 3-2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER .
Exhibit	R2(j)	PHOTO COPY OF THE REJECTION DETAILS OF KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2022, FEBRUARY 2022 AND MARCH 2022
PETITIO	NER EXHIB	ITS
Exhibit	P38	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PURCHASE ORDER NO.27832 DATED 23.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶168

W.P.(C) No.6686 of 2018

¶169

-27-

¶170

Exhibit P38(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 04.04.2022
Exhibit P38(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR GETTING THE REPORT FROM THE RAL
Exhibit P38(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE RAL ON 04.05.2022
Exhibit P38(d)	TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 05.05.2022
Exhibit P38(e)	TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 09.05.2022
Exhibit P38(f)	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 16.05.2022
Exhibit P38(g)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.05.2022
Exhibit P33	TRUE COPY OF THE ENTIRE PAGES OF THE COMPLAINT RELATED TO EXT.P2
Exhibit P34	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.2.2016 IN O.S.NO.39/2008 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P35	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE NO.VIG.305/03 DATED 14.1.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE VIGILANCE OFFICER TO THE CMD OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P36	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER (QA) OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO M/S BSM TRADE LINKS, KALOOR P.O.
Exhibit P37	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.B2-7951/04 DATED 23.8.2004 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KSCS CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

R. Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Vijayakumar 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

Mujeeb Rahman Vs the Nilambur Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

K.Abdul Latheef Vs the District Registrar(General)

Rajesh V.R Vs Kerala Water Authority

Sundaran Bhaskaran, Vs the Sub Registrar

Dr. Justine Stanley Vs the National Medical Commission

M/S. Kancor Ingrediants Ltd. Vs the General Manager