Allowed

Sangita Joe v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2022WP(C)/9617/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition, holding that the Forest Department could not restrain the bank from releasing the petitioner's security amount as no fresh action was initiated after the quashing of the original notice and the interim period expired.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 letter is quashed; the bank is directed to release the amount deposited by the petitioner for the purpose of the bank guarantee.

Sangita Joe Vs the 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

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9617 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SANGITA JOE
AGED 48 YEARS
WIFE OF JOE JOSEPH,
RESIDING AT MANNIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPALLY VILLAGE,
KANJIRAPALLY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686507.
BY ADVS.
ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
SHRI.AKSHAY R

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1THE STATE OF KERALA
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS , PIN-695001.

¶10

2THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFCIER
KONNI, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE,
KONNI FOREST DIVISION,
KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN-689691.
3THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
FOREST RANGE OFFICE,
KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN-689691.
4THE MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
NO.4266,
POONJAR, THEKKEKARA P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686582,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SPL.GP FORESTS T.P.SAJAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 9617 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 6th day of October, 2022

¶18

The petitioner is the owner of a Rubber Plantation. The forest officials issued Ext.P1 notice stating that the petitioner’s land comes within the purview of the Kerala Grants and Leases (Modification of Rights) Act 1980, (‘the Act’ for short) and prohibiting the petitioner from cutting trees or alienating her property. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 notice in W.P(C) No. 8241 of 2010 and obtained an interim order. In terms of the direction in the interim order, the petitioner furnished Exts.P4 bond and P5 bank guarantee. Thereafter, the writ petition itself was allowed by Ext.P8 judgment quashing Ext.P1 notice, on finding the order to have been issued without application of mind and reserving the liberty of the respondents to invoke the provisions of the Act.

¶19

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after Ext.P8 judgment no fresh proceedings was initiated by the Forest Officials. The validity of bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P2 interim direction has expired. The petitioner’s grievance is regarding the Ext.P6 letter issued by the DFO to the Bank requesting to renew the bank guarantee and not to release the amount without getting consent from the Forest Department.

¶20

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no justification in requiring the bank not to release the amount furnished

¶21

¶22

WP(C) NO. 9617 OF 2021

¶23

as security, even after the writ petition was allowed in the petitioner’s favour and the respondent not having initiated any fresh action after the judgment.

¶24

Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that, while allowing the earlier writ petition, this court had reserved the liberty of the Forest Department to initiate action, if so warranted. Therefore, release of the amount at this juncture will cause loss and prejudice to the Department.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I find more merit in the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Indisputably, the earlier writ petition ended in the petitioner’s favour, reserving the liability to initiate action, if so warranted. No document is placed on record in proof of any such action having been initiated. The fact that the period of bank guarantee is also not in dispute. In the absence of any pending proceedings, the forest officials have no right to restrain the bank from releasing the amount due to the petitioner.

¶26

The writ petition is hence allowed, quashing Ext.P6 and directing the bank to release the amount deposited by the petitioner for the purpose of the bank guarantee. It is made clear that this judgment does not in any manner effect the rights available to the respondents to initiate action in terms of the liberty granted under Ext. P8 judgment. If the original documents submitted by the petitioner are still in the

¶27

WP(C) NO. 9617 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

possession of the Forest Officials, the same shall be returned forthwith.

¶30

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶31

¶32

WP(C) NO. 9617 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9617/2021

¶35

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHI`	`BITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY THE`	`THE` `3RD`	`NOTICE DATED 20.11.2009` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `22/03/2010 PA`	`THE` `SSED`	`INTERIM ORDER DATED` `IN WPC.8241 OF 2020.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `BY THE 3RD RE` `RESPONDENT DA`	`THE` `SPON` `TED`	`VALUATION LETTER ISSUED` `DENT TO THE 2ND` `16/04/2010.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `PETITIONER DA`	`THE` `TED`	`BOND EXECUTED BY THE` `21.04.2010.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF` `21.04.2015.`	`THE`	`BANK GUARANTEE DATED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY THE` `RESPONDENT.`	`THE` `2ND`	`LETTER DATED 20.04.2015` `RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF` `21.04.2015.`	`THE`	`BANK GUARANTEE DATED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF` `04.01.2018 IN`	`THE` `WPC`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `8241 OF 2010.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY THE`	`THE` `ISS`	`LETTER DATED 08/02/2018` `UED BY THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF` `SENT BY THE P` `RESPONDENT.`	`THE` `ETIT`	`LETTER DARTED 19.03.2021` `IONER TO THE 2ND`
`EXHIBIT`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF` `SENT BY THE P` `RESPONDENT.`	`THE` `ETIT`	`LETTER DARTED 19.03.2021` `IONER TO THE 4TH`

Sangita Joe v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Joe v. the 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

M/S. Theruvath Builders Represented by Its Executive Partner, Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary to Government

Vishnu A.S. Vs State of Kerala

D.Prajaraj Vs State of Kerala

Alin Cashews Vs Uco Bank

Crosslite Infra Private Limited Vs Director of Industries and Commerce Haryana Cum Chairman Haryana Msemsc

K.N.Mohanan Vs the Superintending Engineer