Allowed

Kizhathadiyoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.1995, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2023WP(C)/10591/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking compensation for cooperative bank vehicles used for election purpose, directing the respondent to consider specific exhibits and resolve the claim within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner's matter to be disposed of within two months after hearing, releasing eligible amounts if found due.

Kizhathadiyoor Service Co-Operative… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶4

1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10591 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KIZHATHADIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.1995, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 575, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SMT.SREELETHA S. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶10

2 THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, KERALA, LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶11

3 THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 4 THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 575. BY ADVS. SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE - GP SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN - SC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C) No. 10591 of 2020

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. ========================= W.P.(C).No. 10591 of 2020

¶16

========================== Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2023

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner is a Co-operative Society and asserts that their

¶19

vehicles were pressed into service for election duty by the 3^rd respondent, on behalf of the 2^nd respondent – Chief Electoral Officer, Kerala. They say that even though they made available the vehicles without any objection, they are entitled to be paid eligible compensation because, they were denied the benefit of using them during the period in question; and asserts that the legal issues in this regard have already been covered in their favour through Ext.P6 judgment, delivered by a learned Judge of this Court, which has been accepted by the Election Commission of India. They thus pray that the 3^rd respondent be directed to release to them eligible amounts towards compensation for the vehicles used for election purposes, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

Pertinently, Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan – learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India, and representing respondent No.3, conceded that Ext.P6 judgment covers the field in favour of the petitioner; but prayed that, in such scenario, the 3^rd respondent be given liberty to consider Exts.P4 and P5 requests,

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 10591 of 2020

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

adverting to Ext.P3, which is the order of the Government relating to the compensation payable in such cases.

¶24

Smt.Vidya Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 3 and 4, submitted that, in view of the afore, if this Court is so inclined, the 3^rd respondent can certainly consider the matter in terms of law.

¶25

Taking note of the afore submissions, and particularly Ext.P6 judgment, I allow this writ petition and direct the 3^rd respondent to immediately take up Exts.P4 and P5 and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Secretary of the petitioner, adverting specifically to Ext.P3 Government order; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

I make it clear that, if, through the afore exercise, amounts are found due to the petitioner, the same shall be released to them within a period of two months thereafter.

¶27

After I dictated this part of the judgment, Smt.Vidya Kuriakose submitted that, though she does not stand in the way of the afore directions, it may also be left to the 3^rd respondent to consider what exactly is the amount eligible to the petitioner, based on Ext.P3. She submitted that she is making this submission

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 10591 of 2020

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

because, as evident from Ext.P6, only certain components are found to be eligible to be paid, and not others.

¶31

Needless to say, every liberty of the 3^rd respondent to consider the matter in terms of law is left open.

¶32

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶33

anm

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 10591 of 2020

¶35

: 5 :

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10591/2020

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF 1ST AND LAST PAGES OF THE LOG BOOM IN RESPECT OF KL 35 C 4789. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF 1ST AND LAST PAGES OF THE LOG BOOK KL 35F 1400. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.254/2019/ELEC. DATED 16/04/2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/10/2019 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 18/11/2019 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/08/2019 IN WPC NO.15620/2019.

¶38

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES

¶39

ANNEXURE R2(a) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS DATED 05.06.2020 FURNISHED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C)NO.10591/2020.

Kizhathadiyoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.1995, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kizhathadiyoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.1995, 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

Thomas J Vayalat Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.

Pradeep Kumar P. Vs the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs

Mary Teresa Gladys M.P., Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

A.Kishore Vs State of Kerala

Thankachan P.K Vs Kerala State Transport Project

Lbs Road Residents Assciation Vs a.S.Naizam