Disposed

Praveen K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2023WP(C)/5970/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two connected writ petitions filed by transportation contractors alleging unfair loading practices and illicit cash demands by FCI employees. After recording affidavits, the Court advised petitioners to approach competent FCI authorities with representations if such demands persist.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit representation to competent FCI authority if demand of Attikkooli/Kettu Cash is made; authority to take action.

Praveen K Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 5970 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

PRAVEEN K AGED 35 YEARS S/O RAMACHANDRAN, KALIYATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAVUKONAM P.O OTTAPALAM TALUK PALAKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679522 BY ADVS. RENJITH B.MARAR LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL ARUN POOMULLI PREETHA S CHANDRAN ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001

¶8

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION BUILDING, COLLECTORATE P.O PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

¶9

3 REGIONAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA KANYAKUMARI-PANVEL RD. RBI COLONY,KESAVADASAPURAM TRIVANDRUM-, PIN - 695004

¶10

4 AREA MANAGER, FCIMULAGUNNATHUKAVU THRISSUR, PIN - 680581

¶11

5 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MAVELIBHAVAN,GANDHINAGER KOCHI-, PIN - 682020

¶12

6 REGIONAL MANAGER SUPPLYCOPALAKKAD REGIONAL OFFICE YAMBOOTOWERS,T.B ROAD PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014

¶13

7 DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, COLLECTORATE P.O PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

¶14

8 DEPOT MANAGER SUPPLYCODEPOT, OTTAPPALAM,PALAKKAD, PIN - 679104

¶15

9 ASST MANAGER

¶16

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶17

¶18

SUPPLYCO GEETHANJALI BUILDING, KANNIYAMPURAM P.O OTTAPALAM-, PIN - 679104

¶19

10 TALUK SUPPLYCO OFFICER MINI CIVIL STATION PATTAMBI, PATTAMBI, KERALA, PIN - 679303

¶20

11 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER CIVIL STATION COMPLEX PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678001

¶21

12 SECRETARY PALAKKAD DISTRICT NATIONAL HEAD & GENERAL WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC) M.C BUILDING,PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

¶22

13 SECRETARY, HEAD& GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU) NINAN COMPLEX PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

¶23

14 SECRETARY, PALAKAD DISTRICT HEAD LOAD MAZDOOR SANGH(BMS) HARIKKARASTREET,PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001 BY ADVS. HARIKRISHNAN RAPHYRAJ SANTHOSH PETER Peter SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).6121/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 6121 OF 2023

¶30

PETITIONERS:

¶31

1 YOOSAF TM AGED 39 YEARS S/O T M MOOSA,THEKKINKATTIL HOUSE PEZHAKKAPPIILY P.O MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673 2 MUHAMMED RAFEEK, AGED 49 YEARS S/O ALIYAR POOKKADASHRIYIL HOUSE MARKET P.O MUVATTUPUZHA-, PIN - 686673 3 JAMES K.P, AGED 48 YEARS S/O K.S PAILY KOZHUKKATTA HOUSE EAST CHERANELLOR P.O KOOVAPPADY PERUMBAVOOR-, PIN - 683544 BY ADVS. RENJITH B.MARAR LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL ARUN POOMULLI PREETHA S CHANDRAN ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR

¶32

RESPONDENTS:

¶33

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-, PIN - 695001 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION BUILDING, COLLECTORATE P.O KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 682030 3 REGIONAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA KANYAKUMARI-PANVEL RD. RBI COLONY,KESAVADASAPURAM

¶34

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶35

¶36

	TRIVANDRUM-, PIN - 695004
4	DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD KAKKANAD-, PIN - 682030
5	DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER IDUKKI CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU .P.O KUYILIMALA,, PIN - 685603
6	KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MAVELIBHAVAN,GANDHINAGER KOCHI-, PIN - 682020
7	REGIONAL MANAGER SUPPLYCOERNAKULAM 2ND FLOOR,SUPPLYCOHYPERMARKET BUILDING, GANDHINAGAR,KOCHI,, PIN - 682020
8	DEPO MANAGER FCIGODOWN NORTH CHAMPANNOOR,ANGAMALY, PIN - 683572
9	DIVISIONAL MANAGER FCI KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS,4 TH FLOOR M.GROAD ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
10	DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD, PIN - 682030
11	DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA-, PIN - 685585
12	SECRETARY, ERNAKULAMDISTRICT NATIONAL HEAD & GENERAL WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC)RAVIPURAM, VALANJAMBALAM SOUTH KERALA-, PIN - 682036
13	SECRETARY ,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT HEAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU)NEAR TOWN HALL,NORTHKALOOR KACHERIPADY,ERNAKULAM,KERALA-, PIN - 682035
14	SECRETARY, ,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT HEAD LOAD MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS) MARAYILLINE,CHITTOR RD KOCHI, PIN - 682018 BY ADV HARIKRISHNAN RAPHYRAJ

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).5970/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶39

¶40

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶41

W.P.(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶42

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2023

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I

¶45

am disposing these writ petitions by a common judgment.

¶46

I will narrate the facts in W.P.(C). No.6121/2023:

¶47

The petitioners herein were appointed as the contractors for the transportation and lifting of ration articles from source godowns (FCI Depot/ CMR godowns) to intermediary godowns and thereafter to fair price shops notified by Supplyco. As per the agreement between the petitioners and respondents, the petitioners have to provide vehicles for transportation and the vehicles need to be loaded with the articles by the employees of the FCI. The petitioners are providing the loading charges for the same. The petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged approach by the employees of FCI. It is stated in the writ petition that the employees of FCI are not loading the vehicles with appropriate quantity of loads. It is also submitted that

¶48

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶49

¶50

they are loading the trucks with quantity much below the capacity of each vehicles. This has resulted to the petitioners great loss is the submission. It is further stated that the approach of the employees is to pressurize the petitioners to provide them with ‘Attikkooli’ and ‘Kettu Cash’. According to the petitioners, their vehicle are only being loaded with quantity much less to their capacity and other vehicles belonging to those who are paying Attikkooli/Kettu Cash as cash to the employees are being loaded with articles much above the capacity and permit of the vehicles. Showing these irregularities, the petitioners preferred representation before the respondents to get the vehicles loaded according to the capacity. The same is not been seen interfered by the authority concerned is the grievance. Hence this writ petition. Similar is the contention in W.P.(C). No.5970/2023. The petitioner in that writ petition also is a contractor appointed for the transportation and lifting of ration articles from source godowns (FCI Depot/ CMR godowns) to intermediary godowns and thereafter to fair price shops notified by Supplyco.

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the Standing

¶52

¶53

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶54

Counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of India and the Kerala Civil Supplies Corporation.

¶55

The counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in these writ petitions. The Standing Counsel for respondents 3, 8 and 9 in W.P.(C). No.6121/2023 takes me through the counter affidavit filed by those respondents. The counsel submitted that the allegation that there is ‘Attikkooli’ or ‘Kettu Cash’ is absolutely incorrect. The Standing Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent in W.P. (C). No.6121/2023 takes me through the counter affidavit filed by that respondent and submitted that there is some force in the argument of the petitioners.

¶56

This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the employees of FCI are not loading the vehicles with appropriate quantity of loads. The next grievance is that the employees are insisting Attikkooli and Kettu Cash and the vehicles belonging to those who are paying Attikkooli/Kettu Cash to the employees are being loaded with articles much above the capacity and permit of the vehicles. This Court perused the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3

¶57

¶58

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶59

and 4 in W.P.(C). No.5970/2023. It will be better to extract paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C). No.5970/2023:

¶60

“4. The allegations upstretched in paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the writ petition are false, frivolous, indecorous and hence denied or the petitioner conveniently pretending ignore about the true state of affair and mounted contentions in paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner that employees of FCI adopted the tactic of not loading the vehicle with appropriate quantity of loads or not loading the truck with quantity much below the capacity of each vehicle with a view to get Attikooli" or "Kettu cash" are false and incorrect. The further contention of the petitioner that those who are paying Attikooll" or "Kettu cash to the employee are being loaded with article much above the capacity and permit of the vehicle are also incorrect and false. At the risk of repetition it is once again respectfully submitted that Attikooli" or "Kettu cash is not prevailing in FCI. It is further submitted that trucks are provided by the respective District Supply Offices (DSO's) representatives for lifting of food grains against NFSA allotment for different schemes. The quantity and number of bags loading is decided by the Civil Supplies authorities as per their requirement to different godowns of various taluks and according to the quantity allotted in different schemes under NFSA.

¶61

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶62

¶63

It is also pertinent to note that, there is no mentioning of Capacity of the vehicle with documentary proof and number of bags to be loaded in the truck entry register maintained at this office. So the number of bags loading in the trucks are varying from truck to truck according to the various factors connected with their requirement for the different schemes and their sub allocations to different taluks and godowns and it is decided only by the civil supplies authorities of the District Supply Offices (DSO's) concerned and FCI has no say in the matter.

¶64

The allegations upstretched in paragraph 6 and 7 of the writ petition are not fully correct and hence denied. It is submitted that petitioner has no direct connection with FCI, FSD Mulakunnathukavu as stated in the writ petition and hence there is no need to submit such representation letter dated 17.02.2023 to this office. The authorised representatives of the concerned DSO is lifting the stock according to their requirement and convenience and there is no complaint in this regard received at this office from any of these authorities till this date. At the risk of repetition it is further submitted that the truck entry is regulated by the civil supplies authorities as per their requirement and lifting against Schemes and varieties and based on their request only this office is permitting truck entry for lifting the stocks based on the release orders. The Capacity of the Vehicle and the

¶65

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶66

¶67

number of bags to be loaded In each truck is not mentioned in the truck entry register by the authorities concerned while providing trucks for lifting. It is submitted that such vague, unreasonable, unjustifiable, unsubstantiated allegations are just concocted stories born out of the mere flight of imagination to befit the illegal motive of the petitioner.”

¶68

The 4^th respondent in W.P.(C). No.6121/2023 filed a

¶69

counter affidavit. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of that counter affidavit also:

¶70

“2. It is submitted that writ petitioners were an authorized contractors for the transportation and lifting of ration articles from FCI, Angamali and Kochi. They were raised complaint that the vehicles offered by the petitioners in consonance with agreements entered by the petitioners and respondent 6 ought to be loaded as per the capacity of the vehicles provided by them. But now the same is not being done since the petitioners not acceding to the illegal demands of the loading employees who are the permanent employees of the FCI, Angamaly. The attempt of the employees is to force the petitioners to pay the illegal amounts by causing loss to him, by not loading the vehicles according to their capacity. On 16.02.2023 the petitioners insisted the employees to load the vehicles

¶71

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶72

¶73

but employees refused and were reluctant to load the vehicles as per capacity. District Supply Officer, Ernakulam visited the FCI depot on 21.02.2023 and conducted an unauthorised meeting of FCI manager, Angamaly and loading employees of the FCI, Angamaly and informed that the loading employees are not entitled to Attikkoli/Kettu cash.

¶74

The Hon'ble Court in WP (C) No.15155/2021 had stayed the levy of Attikkoli/Kettu cash. But they refused to load the vehicle as per the capacity of vehicles. They were loaded only 180 bags (9 tone) in 10 tone capacity vehicles. District Supply Officer informed this issue to FCI Divisional Officer, Kochi and District Collector, Ernakulam. Assistant District Magistrate, Ernakulam conducted a meeting, on 25.02.2023 and discussed the matters with FCI officials, Supplyco officials, contractors and loading employees of the FCI Angamaly. Assistant District Magistrate Emakulam given a strict direction to FCI officials to issue the ration articles properly and inform the matter on 27.02.2023 before 5 PM.

¶75

In this circumstances it is submitted that there is a merit in the arguments of the petitioner and Hon'ble Court may give direction to FCI for load the permit capacity articles.”

¶76

¶77

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶78

It is true that FCI denied the case of the petitioners that there is Attikkooli or Kettu Cash. It is also stated by the FCI that the trucks are provided by the respective District Supply Office representatives for lifting of food grains against NFSA allotment for different schemes. It is also submitted that the quantity and number of bags loading is decided by the Civil Supplies authorities as per their requirement to different godowns of various taluks and according to the quantity allotted in different schemes under NFSA. It is also their case that there is no mentioning of capacity of the vehicle with documentary proof and number of bags to be loaded in the truck entry register maintained in their office. In other words, they say that the capacity of vehicles and the number of bags to be loaded In each truck is not mentioned in the truck entry register by the authorities concerned while providing trucks for lifting.

¶79

In the light of the above affidavit, I think this writ petition can be disposed. If there is any further grievance to the petitioners regarding Attikkooli or Kettu Cash, the petitioners are free to approach the FCI Authorities with appropriate representations and if such representations are

¶80

¶81

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶82

received, the competent authority among the FCI will take action in accordance with law.

¶83

Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner:

¶84

The affidavit filed by respondents 3, 8 and 9 in W.P.(C). No.6121/2023 and the affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C). No.5970/2023 are recorded.

¶85

If there is any demand of “Attikkooli” or “Kettu Cash” from the employees of FCI, the petitioners are free to submit a representation before the competent authority of FCI. If such a representation is received, the competent authority will consider the same and take stringent action to see that there is no such practice.

¶86

Sd/-

¶87

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶88

JUDGE

¶89

¶90

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶91

¶92

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6121/2023

¶93

PETITION	ER EXH	IBITS
Exhibit	P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 1STPETITIONER AND THE SUPPLYCO FOR KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK DATED 2.6.2022
Exhibit	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 1 ST PETITIONER AND THE SUPPLYCO FOR MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK DATED 7.6.2022
Exhibit	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF EXTENSION ENTEREDINTO BETWEEN THE 2 ND PETITIONER AND SUPPLYCO FOR NORTH PARAVUR TALUK DATED 6.2.2023
Exhibit	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE 1 ST PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 16.2.2023
Exhibit	P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE 1 ST PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.5 DATED 16.2.2023
Exhibit	P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE 2 ND PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 16.2.2023
Exhibit	P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE 3 RD PETITIONER
		BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 16.2.2023

¶94

WP(C).Nos.5970 & 6121 of 2023

¶95

¶96

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5970/2023

¶97

PETITION	ER EXH	IBITS
Exhibit	P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE SUPPLYCO
Exhibit	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE RO ISSUE REPORT DATED 17.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE FCI MULAGUNNATHUKAVU
Exhibit	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRAMME CHART ALONG WITH VEHICLE DETAILS
Exhibit	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE TRUCK CHIT REPORT FOR THE VARIOUS VEHICLES PRESENTED ON 17.02.2023
Exhibit	P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE TRUCK CHIT REPORT DATED 28.10.2022 FOR THE VARIOUS VEHICLES PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FCI MULAGUNNATHUKAVU
Exhibit	P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER PREFERRED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.4
Exhibit	P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.8
Exhibit	P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.9

Praveen K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen 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

Nishma C.T. Vs State of Kerala

Abdu Vs State of Kerala

Shaheer O.S. Vs the Station House Officer

Yoosaf Tm Vs State of Kerala

Deepthi Vs State of Kerala

Vivek Vs State of Kerala