Dismissed

Sunitha Kumari C.S v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2023RP/514/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice N. Nagareth dismissed the Review Petition filed under RP No. 514/2023 challenging the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 19607/2022. The Court held that since the petitioner's agency empanellement for waste management expired on 30.10.2022, she cannot insist on continuation of services or raise claims against the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation's decision not to re-engage any agency. Alleged factual d

What the court decided

AI extract

Sunitha Kumari C.S Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023/28TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

RP NO. 514 OF 2023

¶6

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶8

SUNITHA KUMARI C.S AGED 36 YEARS

¶9

W/O VENKITESAN, CHENIYATHARA, BEEMAPPALLI WARD, VALLAKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶10

PIN - 695008

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.V.HARISH SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶14

2 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

3 THE SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033

¶16

RP No.514/2023

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

4 HEALTH INSPECTOR MANACADU DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695009

¶19

SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC FOR R2 TO R4 SMT.AMMINIKUTTY, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RP No.514/2023

: 3 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

R.P. No.514 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.19607 of 2022

¶26

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2023

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶29

The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19607/2022 is

¶30

before this Court filing a review petition alleging that the judgment dated 03.11.2022 in the writ petition is liable to be reviewed as there are errors apparent on the face of the records.

¶31

The petitioner, who is a service provider empanelled by the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and who worked as part of the Haritha Karma Sena under the 2^nd respondent-Corporation, approached this Court filing the writ petition seeking to direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents not to evict the petitioner from any of the ongoing duties without

¶32

RP No.514/2023

¶33

: 4 :

¶34

following the due process of law.

¶35

The petitioner alleged that the 2^nd respondent has recognised the petitioner's unit as an agency for waste management in four wards in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. The petitioner was permitted to handle inorganic waste. The petitioner alleged that the facilities to be provided to such agencies and Kudumbasree Units, are not provided.

¶36

The Thiruvananthapuram Corporation resisted the writ petition. The respondents submitted out that the tenure of the petitioner's agency stood expired on 30.102.2022 and therefore the petitioner as an agency cannot insist that the petitioner has a subsisting grievance. The Standing Counsel submitted that the Corporation will be implementing the provisions of Exts.P1 and P2 stage by stage. It was further submitted that the Corporation does not intend to engage any agency for the discharge of functions at this point of time.

¶37

RP No.514/2023

¶38

: 5 :

¶39

This Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the period of the petitioner's agency has expired on 30.10.2022 and that the Corporation does not intend to further engage any agencies for Haritha Karma Sena work. The respondents submitted that Haritha Karma Senas of all the 100 Wards of the Corporation have been linked to Kudumbasree Units. This Court therefore held that the petitioner cannot insist that the agency should be permitted to continue the work or that the Corporation should not be permitted to dispense with the service of the petitioner's agency.

¶40

The review petitioner submits that the submissions made by the Standing Counsel for the Corporation is contrary to actual facts of the case as seen from AnnexuresA3 and A4. Annexure-A3 would reveal that no new Haritha Karma Senas linked to Kudumbasree Units have started waste collection in the 2^nd respondent-Corporation contrary to what the 2^nd respondent had submitted during the proceedings. The period of expiry of the petitioner's agency

¶41

RP No.514/2023

¶42

: 6 :

¶43

was with regard to collection of plastic waste and not organic waste. Annexure-A6 information would reveal that coir pit inoculum is still being provided to various agencies by the 2^nd respondent even after issuance of the judgment.

¶44

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 to 4. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶45

In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner claimed that the 2^nd respondent has recognised the petitioner's Unit as an agency in four Wards and has permitted the petitioner to continue the handling of inorganic waste. In the year 2019, application was called for the collection of organic and inorganic waste from offices/institution. The 3^rd respondent executed an agreement with the petitioner. The empanelment of the petitioner's agency was for a fixed period and the period expired on 30.10.2022. The petitioner did not make any distinction in respect of right to collect organic and inorganic

¶46

RP No.514/2023

¶47

: 7 :

¶48

waste. The writ petition was disposed of recording the fact

¶49

that the period of the petitioner's agreement is over.

¶50

In the afore facts, the petitioner cannot now be

¶51

heard to contend that coir pit inoculum is still being provided to various agencies and hence the petitioner also should be permitted to continue with collection of organic waste in spite of the expiry of the tenure of the agreement.

¶52

The review petition is therefore without any force

¶53

of merit and it is hence dismissed.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/15.09.2023

RP No.514/2023

: 8 :

APPENDIX OF RP 514/2023

¶60

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶61

Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 19607 OF 2022

¶62

Annexure A2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE QUERY DATED 07.11.2022 PREFERRED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER/ PETITIONER BEFORE THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT Annexure A3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05.12.2022 FURNISHED BY THE OFFICE OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT Annexure A4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER VIDE S.O (ORDINARY) NO. 1292/2021/LSGD DATED 08.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT Annexure A5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.12.2022 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 01.02.2023 Annexure A7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.H19/22306/22 DATED 24.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERINM ORDER DATED 16.01.2023 IN WPC.NO.923 OF 2023 Annexure A10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶63

RP No.514/2023

¶64

: 9 :

¶65

Annexure A11	A TRUE	PHOTOCOPY	OF THE RELEVANT PAGES
	OF THE	PROCEEDI	NGS OF THE COUNCIL
	MEETING	OF THE	2ND RESPONDENT DATED
	20.04.2	023
Annexure A12	A TRUE	PHOTOCOP	Y OF THE NEWSPAPER
	REPORT	DATED 30	.12.2022 REPORTED IN
	MATHRUB	HUMI DAILY

¶66

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL

Sunitha Kumari C.S v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sunitha Kumari C.S v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Salimkhan Vs Herchan Lawrence D’Cruz

Abhinandh, Vs State of Kerala

Ajay @ Ajayan, Vs State of Kerala

Mini I. Vs Principal Secretary

Yamuna Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Hussain K Vs State of Kerala