Partly allowed

Joobin. K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2023WP(C)/24180/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging termination of vehicle removal contracts based on an unproved criminal allegation. The Court held that the termination order violates principles of natural justice since the petitioner had not been found guilty by a court. The order is treated as a show-cause notice, and the District Police Chief is directed to hear the petitioner within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The termination order treated as a show-cause notice; the District Police Chief directed to hear the petitioner within two weeks to pass a new order.

Joobin. K Vs 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 32765 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOOBIN.K., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SUNDARAN,
NANDANAM HOUSE PATHIRIYAL, WANDOOR,
PROPRIETOR M/S.RIGEL ORION EXIMCO,
MANJERI MALAPPURAM., PIN – 676121

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

M.SASINDRAN
S.SHYAM KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695001

¶12

2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM., PIN – 676504

¶14

4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION NILAMBUR POST, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679329

¶15

SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C)No.24180/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WPC 32765/23 & 24180/23

¶18

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶22

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 24180 OF 2023

¶23

PETITIONER:

¶24

JOOBIN. K, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. SUNDARAN,
NANDANAM HOUSE, PATHIRIYAL, WANDOOR,
PROPRIETOR, M/S. RIGEL ORION EXIMCO,
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676121

¶25

BY ADVS.
C.P.UDAYABHANU
NAVANEETH.N.NATH
RASSAL JANARDHANAN A.
ABHISHEK M. KUNNATHU
P.R.AJAY
BOBAN PALAT
P.U.PRATHEESH KUMAR
K.U.SWAPNIL

¶26

RESPONDENTS:

¶27

1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHEIF SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695001

¶28

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676521

¶29

3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM., PIN – 679329

¶30

4 SASIKUMAR. M., SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOKKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM., PIN – 679332

¶31

BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE - GP

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.32765/2023, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

WPC 32765/23 & 24180/23

¶34

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

[WP(C) Nos.32765/2023, 24180/2023]

¶37

I am considering these Writ Petitions together since they have

¶38

been filed by the same person and because the factual factors

¶39

presented are inter-layered, while the reliefs sought for are connected with each other.

¶40

2 . These Writ Petitions have been filed by Sri.Joobin K, who

¶41

had taken a contract with the Police Department to remove vehicles

¶42

in scrap form. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the documents and averments as available in WP(C)No.32765/2023.

¶43

3 . The petitioner, through his learned counsel – Sri.M.Sasindran, vehemently submits that he has obtained Ext.P1 Contract with respect to the vehicles to be removed from the various Police Stations/yards, for which he had already remitted tax. He says

¶44

that, as regards Exts.P2 and P3, the contracts provide that the vehicles to be removed shall be identified by the designated Nodal Officer; and that, on such being done, he has to remove the same in scrap form.

¶45

4 . Sri.M.Sasindran explained that his client has only acted as

¶46

WPC 32765/23 & 24180/23

¶47

¶48

per the contracts, but that under a wrong imputation – that he removed the vehicles even before it was identified by the Nodal Officer – a Crime has been registered against him. He admitted that there is an investigation against his client based on the same; but that, in the meanwhile, without adverting to any of the relevant facts and even without affording his client an opportunity of being heard, Ext.P11 has been issued, terminating the contracts. The learned counsel pointed out that, as far as WP(C)No.24180/2023 is concerned, it was filed impugning Ext.P8 order therein, whereby, the contract had been earlier suspended and therefore, that the reliefs therein are not now relevant, since they stand subscribed by the ones sought for in the subsequent case, namely WP(C)No.32765/2023.

¶49

5 . In response, Smt.Vidya Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, submitted that the afore assertions of the petitioner are untrue and that there are specific inputs, which have been verified by the Police, to the effect that he had removed vehicles without being properly identified by the Nodal Officer. She argued that, even as per Ext.P1 contract, the petitioner could not have removed vehicles at his whim and fancy and that this also ought to have been

¶50

¶51

WPC 32765/23 & 24180/23

¶52

identified by the Nodal Officer. She, therefore, prayed that the impugned order, namely Ext.P11, be left uninterdicted because the petitioner is already facing a Crime before the competent Criminal Court.

¶53

6 . In reply, Sri.M.Sasindran argued that, even the afore

¶54

assertions of the learned Government Pleader do not answer his client’s specific plea – that Ext.P11 could not have been issued without affording him an opportunity of being heard. He submitted that this is imperative and necessary because, Ext.P11 terminates the contract, for which, the principles of natural justice will have to be followed. He argued that, as regards the criminal case, his client is defending it appropriately, during which, his remedies are also different.

¶55

7 . I must say that there is some force in the afore

¶56

submissions of Sri.M.Sasindran because, when a contract is sought to be terminated on the basis of an unproved allegation, which is still

¶57

pending before the competent Criminal Court, certainly, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard. It would have been a different case altogether had he been found guilty

¶58

¶59

WPC 32765/23 & 24180/23

¶60

and sentenced by the Court, in which event, perhaps, a consequential

¶61

order cancelling the contract would have been issued even without

¶62

hearing him.

¶63

8 . As I have said above, in this case, as matters now stand,

¶64

the petitioner has not been found guilty by a Court, but is only facing charges; and obviously, therefore, before the contract in question could have been terminated, he certainly ought to have been heard.

¶65

In the afore circumstances and in such perspective, I order

¶66

these Writ Petitions in the following manner:

¶67

¶68

that Ext.P11 will be treated only as a Show-Cause Notice.

¶69

b ) Consequentially, the District Police Chief will hear the petitioner, based on the objections to be filed by him against Ext.P11 – which shall be done by him within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; thus culminating in a new order and necessary action, within a period of one month from the date on which such explanation is offered.

¶70

c ) The right of the petitioner to act as per the contracts will,

¶71

WPC 32765/23 & 24180/23

¶72

¶73

however, depend upon the decision to be taken by the District Police

¶74

Chief.

¶75

¶76

required in it, in view of the afore directions.

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

RR

¶79

 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶80

JUDGE

¶81

WPC 32765/23 & 24180/23

¶82

¶83

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24180/2023

¶84

`PETITION`	`ER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO:` `G1-60715/2021/MM DATED 01/02/2022 AND ITS` `PROCEEDINGS PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `CONFIRMING THE AUCTION IN THE NAME OF THE` `FIRM OF THIS PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF RESPONDENT` `NO.2 AND THE ORDER IN G1-82522/2021/MM` `DATED 25.07.2022`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF RESPONDENT` `NO.2 AND THE ORDER IN G1-82522/2021/MM(1)` `DATED 21.04.2023`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.04.2023` `INITIATED BY RESPONDENT NO. 4`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.` `1046/2023 ON THE FILES OF JFCM COURT,` `NILAMBUR`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.10.2022` `AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY` `THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS OBTAINED BY THIS` `PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT` `TO INFORMATION ACT`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`THE ORDER IN CRL M C 573/2023 DATED` `05/06/2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SESSIONS` `COURT, MANJERI`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`A COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.06.2023`
`RESPONDE`	`NT EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit`	`R3(a)`	`A true Copy of the order of the 2nd` `respondent dated 04/08/2023`

¶85

WPC 32765/23 & 24180/23

¶86

¶87

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32765/2023

¶88

`PETITIONER EXHIB` `Exhibit P1`	`ITS` `TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G1-60715/2021/MM` `DATED 01-02-2022 OF THE DISTRICT POLICE` `CHIEF MALAPPURAM.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF VEHICLES` `FURNISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PURSUANT` `TO EXT.P1.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.G1-` `82522/2021/MM DATED 24-03-2023 OF 3RD` `RESPONDENT DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,` `MALAPPURAM.`
`Exhibit P4`	`RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS` `NO.G1-82522/2021/MM DATED 24-05-2022 OF` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.G1-` `82522/2021/MM DATED 11.06.2023 OF THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P6`	`RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS` `NO.G1-82522/2021/MM DATED 11.04.2023 OF` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.G1-` `82522/2021/MM(1) DATED 21.04.2023 OF THE` `3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.G1-` `82522/2021/MM(5) DATED 24-03-2023 OF THE` `3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS` `NO.G1/82522/2021/MM DATED 31.12.2022 OF` `3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P10`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED` `15.06.2023 IN CRIME NO.424/2023 AND FILED` `ON 24.6.2023 UNDER SECTION 379 READ WITH` `34 IPC`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.G1-` `82522/2021/MM DATED 04-08-2023 OF THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT.`

Joobin. K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joobin. K 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

Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala

Rashida Jabbar Vs Verbster India Surgicals Pvt. Ltd.

Xxxx Vs Yyy

Mr. Zainul Abidheen alias Kunjutty Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Raiju K. Y Vs State of Kerala

Vallikutty Vs Appellate Tribunal and District Magistrate, Palakkad