Dismissed

M.Ganesan v. the Chief Inspector of Plantation

Kerala HC7 Mar 2023WP(C)/4170/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a retired employee challenging an eviction notice under Rule 63 of the Kerala Plantation Labour Rules, 1959. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Chief Inspector and respond to the notice instead of quashing it immediately.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent and respond to Ext.P2 within the statutory period.

M.Ganesan Vs the Chief Inspector of Plantation — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 7THDAY OF MARCH 2023 / 16TH PHALGUNA,1944
WP(C) NO. 4170 OF 2023

¶2

PETITIONER:

¶3

M.GANESAN
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O MUNIYANDI, P.F. NO. 2743, EX MAZDOOR SOUTH
DIVISION, NULLATHANNI ESTATE, MUNNAR POST,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685612.

¶4

BY ADVS.
N.K.SHYJU
GIREESH PANKAJAKSHAN
ANANYA M.
VISHNU MOHAN

¶5

RESPONDENTS:

¶6

1THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PLANTATION
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PLANTATION,
THIRUNAKKARA SOUTH ROAD, THIRUNAKKARA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686001.

¶7

2KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED
NULLATANNI ESTATE, MUNNAR.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685612,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.

¶8

SRI.T R RENJITH, SR GP

¶9

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON07.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶10

W.P.(C) No.4170 of 2023 2

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

The petitioner states that after rendering 43 years of continuous

¶13

service in the 2nd respondent Plantation Company, he attained superannuation on 30.04.2017. His entire family is residing in the line building situated in the Estate. It is stated that the Chief Inspector of Plantation has now issued Ext.P2 eviction notice invoking Rule 63 of the Kerala Plantation Labour Rules, 1959. Complaining that the notice has been issued without considering the factual situation, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to the 2nd respondent not to evict the petitioner from the company lines and also for issuing directions to the respondents to disburse the service benefits.

¶14

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is overstaying in the plantation, and it was in the said circumstances that the 2nd respondent invoked the provision of the Kerala Plantation Labour Rules, 1959, and a notice was issued under Rule 63. It is submitted that the petitioner is required to appear before the said authority and raise his contentions. It is also submitted that the son of the petitioner has obtained a job in the same company and is residing in another building.

¶15

W.P.(C) No.4170 of 2023 3

¶16

I have considered the submissions advanced. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P2 show cause notice issued by the Chief Inspector of Plantations based on an application filed by the Manager under the relevant provisions of Plantation Labour Rules, 1959, to evict the petitioner for overstaying in the Company line buildings. There is no case for the petitioner that the provisions of the Rules have been wrongly exercised by the 1st respondent. It is for the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent and file an objection as directed in Ext.P2, and if the same is done, it is for the 1st respondent to consider the same and take a decision in an expeditious manner.

¶17

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent and respond to Ext.P2. The 1st respondent shall consider the matter in terms of the Statutory Rules and take a decision in an expeditious manner.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶20

Sru

¶21

W.P.(C) No.4170 of 2023 4

¶22

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4170/2023

¶23

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶24

Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PLANTATION
INSPECTOR DATED 17.06.2017.

¶25

Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE EVICTION NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS, KOTTAYAM
DATED 21.10.2021.

¶26

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

M.Ganesan v. the Chief Inspector of Plantation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ganesan v. the Chief Inspector of Plantation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Radhakrishnan Vs Indian Rare Earth Limited

Usman Theruvath Kunhumon Vs Union of India

Sajamon M.V. Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Varghese a, Vs Thiruvananthapuram District Committee of Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board

Murugan S. Vs Thiruvananthapuram District Committee of Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board

Anas T.U. Vs the Secretary