Allowed

Sree Kumar P.P v. Union of India Represented by Its Secretary

Kerala HC6 Mar 2024WP(C)/10204/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired CISF personnel challenged denial of liquor procurement benefits under the newly introduced Centralized Liquor Management System, asserting they previously enjoyed this privilege. The court held the question required consideration by CISF and directed its Director General to reconsider the claims after hearing the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; Director General, CISF directed to reconsider petitioners' claims for CLMS access within three months after affording hearing.

Sree Kumar P.P Vs Union of India Represented by Its… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10204 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1SREE KUMAR P.P
EX. INSPECTOR/EXECUTIVE CISF, NO.821540068, CISF UNIT
COCHIN PORT TRUST, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KANNADISSERIL
HOUSE, KURATTISSERY, MANNAR P O, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN -
689622

¶8

2SYAM MOHAN S.A
EX.HEAD CONSTABLE/CISF, CISF NO.991360116, CISF UNIT
KIOCL MANGALORE, KARNATAKA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
"KOUSTHUBHAM", MANIKANTESWARAM, PERRORKKADA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695013

¶9

3SIJU V RAKHAVAN
EX HEAD CONSTABLE/CISF, CISF NO.994450146, CISF UNIT
SAC/PRL AHMEDABAD, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VAKAMATTATHIL
HOUSE, VARAPPETTY POST, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA,
PIN - 686691
BY ADVS.
T.SANJAY
SANIL KUMAR G.
RAVEENDRAN K.
MIDHUN R.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL GROUP CENTRE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, PALLIPPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695316

¶13

3 THE CHAIRMAN WELFARE AND REHABILITATION BOARD, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, ROOM NO.204-205, 2ND FLOOR, F WING, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011

¶14

4 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶15

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶16

¶17

CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, CISF HEAD QUARTERS,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003

¶18

5 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶19

CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, CISF HEAD QUARTERS, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003

¶20

6 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL/BSF STATION HEAD QUARTERS, VALIYATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695008

¶21

7 THE COMMANDANT

¶22

INDO TIBETAN BOARDER POLICE, 27 BATTALION, NOORANAD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690571

¶23

BY ADVS.

¶24

MANU S. DSG OF INDIA
MINI GOPINATH -CGC .
GIRISH KUMAR V

¶25

SRI. P.S.APPU, GP

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).13691/2023, 8183/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶28

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶32

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶33

WP(C) NO. 13691 OF 2023

¶34

PETITIONER:

¶35

CISF EX - SERVICE WELFARE ASSOCIATION
CHANDRAGIRI,HAPPY VALLEY RA NO.67, TOG - IG ROAD,
KALAMASSERY,REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY BABU P., PIN
- 683104

¶36

BY ADVS.
V.JAYAPRADEEP
O.A.NURIYA
D.S.LOKANATHAN
ARSHIJA T.P.
LILIN LAL

¶37

RESPONDENTS:

¶38

1 UNION OF INDIA

¶39

INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI,, PIN - 110001

¶40

2 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

¶41

GROUP CENTRE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, PALLIPPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695316

¶42

3 THE CHAIRMAN, WELFARE AND REHABILITATION BOARD MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, ROOM NO.204-205, 2ND FLOOR, F WING, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011

¶43

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT SECRETERIAT,THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶44

5 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE,(CRPF), BLOCK NO. , CGOS COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003

¶45

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶46

6 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO TEBETIAN BORDER POLICE FORCE (ITBP) BLOCK NO. CGOS COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003

¶47

7 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE (BSF BLOCK NO. CGOS COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003

¶48

8 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL FORCE (CISF), CGOS COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003

¶49

9 THE DIRECTOR,(PERS) POLICE - II DIVISION, R & W DIRECTORATE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, 3RD FLOOR, NDCC - II BUILDING, JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

¶50

BY ADV MANU S. DSG OF INDIA

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).10204/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶52

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶53

¶54

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶55

PRESENT

¶56

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶57

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶58

WP(C) NO. 8183 OF 2024

¶59

PETITIONERS:

¶60

1MANI.P.K,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O KARUPPAN K.V, RESIDING AT NELLIKKAL HOUSE, VK COLONY
PO, THEVAKKAL, BMC (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN -
682021

¶61

2P.K SHIBINKUMAR,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O P.A.KUTTAN, RESIDING AT PLASSERIL HOUSE, MOOTHAKUNNAM
P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683516
BY ADVS.
R.NIKHIL
AZHAR M.

¶62

RESPONDENTS:

¶63

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110001

¶64

2 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, GROUP CENTRE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, PALLIPPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695316

¶65

3 THE CHAIRMAN, WELFARE AND REHABILITATION BOARD, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, ROOM NO.204-205, 2ND FLOOR, F WING, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110011

¶66

4 THE COMMANDANT, 105 RAPID ACTION FORCE, BATTALION, VELLALORE P.O, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU., PIN - 641111

¶67

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶68

¶69

5 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, CISF HEAD QUARTERS, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI., PIN - 110003

¶70

SRI.S.MANU, DSGI

¶71

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).10204/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶72

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶73

¶74

JUDGMENT

¶75

The petitioners in these writ petitions

¶76

are officers who retired from the service of the

¶77

‘Central Industrial Security Force’ (CISF).
They have approached this Court alleging that
they have been denied the benefit of being able
to procure liquor from the now introduced
‘Centralized Liquor Management System’ (CLMS);
and assert that this is illegal and unlawful,
since they were enjoying this in the past, as

¶78

has been explained in the pleadings.

¶79

2.I am considering the afore three writ
petitions together, since they impel analogous
facts and circumstances and see reliefs which
are similar, but for the sake of convenience,
WP(C)No.10204/2023 will be treated as the lead

¶80

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶81

8

¶82

case and all reference to documents in this case

¶83

will be as produced therein unless otherwise
specified.

¶84

3.Sri.T.Sanjay – learned counsel for the

¶85

petitioners in WP(C)No.10204/2023, pointed out

¶86

that the ‘CISF’ is the part of the ‘Central
Armed Police Forces’ (CAPF); and that the

¶87

Ministry of Home Affairs (HMA) of the

¶88

Government of India, issued an order dated
23.06.2011 – produced as Ext.P2 in these cases,
whereby, it was decided and ordered that persons
like the petitioners can get access to the
‘Central Police Canteen’ (CPC), to obtain liquor
for consumption. He then pointed that, in
order to fructify this, the Government of Kerala

¶89

issued a notification, bearing No.GO(P)
No.77/2018/TD dated 01.06.2018 - a copy of

¶90

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶91

¶92

whichisonrecordasExt.P6in

¶93

WPC(C)No.10204/2023, through, while, all Defence
Service Personnel, Ex-Service Men and Central
Armed Police Personnel, along with Ex-Service
Central Armed Police Personnel, were included
for the benefit under the said Abkari Rules. He
submitted that, in fact, this was fortified by
the judgment of this Court subsequently
delivered in WP(C)No.18110/2016, wherein, the
submissions of the learned Central Government
Counsel was recorded that, as per an order dated
30.06.2019, “Liquor Cards” were ordered to be
issued to former ‘CISF’ personnel, so as to
enable them to draw liquor through the canteen
of the Group Centre operated by the Central

¶94

Reserve Police Force (CRPF), as per their
entitlement.

¶95

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶96

¶97

4.Sri.T.Sanjay – learned counsel for the

¶98

petitioners in WP(C)No.10204/2023, argued that

¶99

the scenario is thus clear, that all the
petitioners - along with various others, were
enjoying the benefit of being able to buy and
procure liquor from the Master Canteen, but that

¶100

when the regime of “CLMS” was introduced, this
has been denied. He thus prayed that the
respondents be directed to restore the privilege

¶101

enjoyed by the former ‘CISF’ personnel, to
procure liquor from the “CPCs”, forthwith.

¶102

5.However, Sri.Gireesh Kumar - Central

¶103

Government Counsel appearing for the “CLMS”,

¶104

submitted that, as has been averred in the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of his client,

¶105

there has never been a system in the ‘CISF’, of

¶106

allowing either serving or retired personnel to

¶107

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶108

¶109

obtain access to the liquor procurement system
and that what has been stated above by
Sri.T.Sanjay was only an arrangement that was
acceded to, not as the matter of right, but

¶110

purely as a matter of indulgence. He submitted
that the implementation of “CLMS” in ‘CISF’ was
examined by itS competent Authorities at the
highest level; but concluded that, since there
has never been any system of issuance of liquor
to its personnel, “there does not seem to be any
pressing need or serious justification for it”
(sic). He added that this is a matter of policy
and that when the petitioners themselves admit
the serving officers of ‘CISF’ have not been
granted access to the “CLMS”, there is no
justification in them seeking such, as a matter
of right through these writ petitions. He

¶111

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶112

concluded saying that, this is more so because,

¶113

even when the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, had, through their order
dated 31.07.2017, introduced “Rum allowance” in
the ‘CAPFs’, the same was neither be drawn or
allowed to the officers of the ‘CISF’ - either
serving or retired. He thus prayed that these
writ petitions be dismissed.

¶114

6.When I evaluate and consider the afore
submissions, it is evident that, on one hand,
the petitioners seek continuation of a privilege
that was offered to them in the past; while, the
‘CISF’ says that there is no obligation on their
part to join the “CLMS”, thus giving access to
procurement of liquor, either to the serving
officers or retired personnel.

¶115

7.There cannot be any doubt that in matters

¶116

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶117

¶118

of policy, the jurisdiction of this Court is

¶119

barricaded to a large extent; and this is well

¶120

settled through catena of judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.

¶121

8.However, what is relevant in these cases

¶122

is that the petitioners do not seek a new
privilege, but only something that they say was
available to them in the past; asserting it not
be taken away solely because, a new regime, in
the form of “CLMS” has been introduced by the
Government of India. It is their specific case
that, by the introduction of the “CLMS”, except
the manner of procurement of liquor – which is
now through an online platform, rather than
physical purchase – nothing has changed,
particularly when the submissions of the
Government had been recorded by this Court in the

¶123

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶124

14

¶125

aforementioned judgment.

¶126

the afore submissions of the petitioners because,

¶127

this is not a case where they are seeking that
they be given a new privilege, but only that the
benefit that was offered to them earlier be not
disturbed, merely because a new regime of
procurement of liquor has been introduced by the
Government.

¶128

10.When the ‘CISF’, in their pleadings, say

¶129

that their serving officers were never included

¶130

in the liquor procurement system – whether it be

¶131

“CLMS” or the earlier one – they do not answer
the specific assertions of the petitioners, that
the retired personnel were allowed such privilege
- which is evident from the narrative made by
their learned counsel, Sri.T.Sanjay and recorded

¶132

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶133

above.

¶134

‘CISF’ must consider because, one fails to

¶135

understand why they stand in the way of persons

¶136

like the petitioners continuing their privilege,
which they were enjoying earlier, even when it is
accepted that, their policy of not allowing the
serving officers access of liquor is on account
of their functional requirements and occupational
exigencies.

¶137

12.To paraphrase, the question whether the

¶138

petitioners can be denied access to purchase
liquor, solely because there is a new regime
introduced by the Government, is an issue that
must be considered by the ‘CISF’ appropriately.
This is more so because, if the petitioners are
to obtain any benefit under the “CLMS”, then

¶139

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶140

¶141

certainly, it is for the ‘CISF’ to share their
details into the online system, so that the
procurement then becomes possible, which

¶142

otherwise is not now tenable.

¶143

In the afore circumstances, I allow these
writ petitions and direct the Director General of

¶144

the ‘CISF’ to reconsider the claims of the
petitioners, adverting to my observations above
and specifically to the above referred orders and
judgment of this Court, and after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioners;
thus culminating in an appropriate order and
necessary action, as to whether at least the

¶145

names of the retired personnel need to be
introduced into the “CLMS”, so as to enable them
to continue to obtain the benefit of purchase of
liquor as has been done in the past.

¶146

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶147

¶148

A decision in this regard shall be taken by

¶149

the Director General as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
based on which, the request of the petitioners
for access to the “CLMS”, will then be either

¶150

acceded to or refused - as the case may be.

¶151

 Sd/-

¶152

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶153

JUDGE

¶154

SAS

¶155

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶156

18

¶157

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13691/2023

¶158

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶159

`Exhibit.P1`	`TRUE COPY OF TH` `DATED.9.7.2019`	`E JUDGMENT IN WPC.18110/2016`
`Exhibit.P2`	`TRUE COPY OF T` `RESPONDENT DATED.`	`HE ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH` `2.1.2023`
`Exhibit.P2{a}`	`TRUE COPY OF THE`	`ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2`
`Exhibit.P3`	`THE COPY OF`	`THE REPRESENTATION OF THE`
	`PETITIONER SUBMI` `DATED 14.01.2023`	`TTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit.P4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `PETITIONER DATED` `8TH RESPONDENT`	`THE REPRESENTATION OF THE` `14.01.2023 SUBMITTED TO THE`
`Exhibit.P5`	`THE COPY OF`	`THE REPRESENTATION OF THE`
	`PETITIONER GIVEN` `16.01.2023`	`TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED`
`Exhibit.P6`	`TRUE COPY OF TH` `THE 3RD RESPONDEN`	`E LETTER DATED 18.01.2023 OF` `T`
`Exhibit.P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `10204/2023`	`ORDER DATED 24.03.2023 IN WPC`
`Exhibit.P8`	`True copy of the` `by the 2nd Respon`	`Letter dated.23.3.2023 issued` `dent`
`Exhibit.P9`	`True copy of the` `by the Commandant`	`Letter dated.19.6.2018 issued` `, ITB Police Force`
`Exhibit.P10`	`True copy of the`	`Affidavit dated.16.5.2020`
`Exhibit.P11`	`True copy of the`	`Letter dated.5.9.2018 issued`
	`by the BSF` `Commissioner of` `copy`	`Kozhikode to the Deputy` `Excise , Calicut with Typed`
`Exhibit.P12`	`True copy of` `Submitted by DIG,`	`the Letter dated.30.5.2019` `CRPF,RTC Peringome`
`RESPONDENTS’ EXHI`	`BITS:`
`Exhibit R2(a)`	`True copy of` `4/2018 dated 20.` `General CRPF, New`	`the CRPF Standing Order No.` `02.2018 issued by Directorate` `Delhi`

¶160

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶161

¶162

`Exhibit R2(b)`	`True` `by MH`	`copy o` `A`	`f the Order dated`	`04.03.2021`	`issued`
`Exhibit R2(c)`	`True` `06.04`	`copy` `.2021`	`of minutes of`	`meeting`	`dated`
`Exhibit R2(d)`	`True` `issue` `Direc`	`copy` `d` `by` `torate`	`of the letter` `Rehabilitation` `of MHA`	`dated 17.` `and`	`05.2021` `Welfare`
`Exhibit R2(e)`	`True`	`copy o`	`f CISF HQr letter`	`dated 23.06`	`.2021`
`Exhibit R2(f)`	`True` `05.08`	`copy` `.2021`	`of Minutes of`	`Meeting`	`dated`
`Exhibit R2(g)`	`True` `09.02`	`copy` `.2022`	`of minutes of`	`meeting`	`dated`
`Exhibit R2(h)`	`True`	`copy`	`of ITBP letter`	`dated 22.`	`05.2023`
	`issue` `CRPF`	`d to` `(Law)`	`Dy. Inspector Ge`	`neral of`	`Police,`

¶163

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶164

¶165

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8183/2024

¶166

`PETITIONER’S EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `NO.27011/18/2006-R&W` `BY THE 1ST RESPONDEN`	`THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM` `DATED 18.09.2006 ISSUED` `T`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `IN W.P(C) NO:18110/` `HON'BLE COURT`	`JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2019` `2016 ON THE FILES OF THIS`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `1ST PETITIONER`	`LIQUOR CARD ISSUED TO THE`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `2ND PETITIONER`	`LIQUOR CARD ISSUED TO THE`
`ExhibitP5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `(CLMS DATED 02.01` `RESPONDENT ALONG WI` `COPY`	`ORDER BEARING NO: 01/2023-` `.2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH` `TH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATED`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `WP(C) NO: 10204 OF` `HON'BLE COURT`	`ORDER DATED 24.03.2023 IN` `2023 ON THE FILES OF THIS`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `21.02.2024 IN W.P.(` `FILES OF THIS HON'BL`	`THE INTERIM ORDER DATED` `C) NO:6592 OF 2024 ON THE` `E COURT`
`Exhibit P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE PETITIONERS TO` `21.02.2024`	`REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED`
`Exhibit P9`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE PETITIONERS TO` `21.02.2024`	`REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED`
`Exhibit P10`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE PETITIONERS TO` `21.02.2024`	`REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED`
`Exhibit P11`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE PETITIONERS TO` `21.02.2024`	`REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED`
`Exhibit P12`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE PETITIONERS TO` `21.02.2024`	`REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED`

¶167

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶168

21

¶169

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10204/2023

¶170

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶171

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED`
	`31.10.2021` `PETITIONER`	`ISSUED BY CISF TO THE 1ST`
`Exhibit P1a`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED`
	`07.01.2020` `PETITIONER`	`ISSUED BY CISF TO THE 2ND`
`Exhibit P1b`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED`
	`01.09.2020` `PETITIONER`	`ISSUED BY CISF TO THE 3RD`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COP` `NO.27011/18` `BY THE 1ST`	`Y OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM` `/2006-R&W DATED 18.09.2006 ISSUED` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED BY` `OF THE 1ST`	`OF THE LETTER DATED 23.06.2011` `THE CENTRAL POLICE CANTEEN DIVISION` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY` `27011/100/2` `BY THE 1ST`	`OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.` `012- R&WS DATED 23/11/2012 ISSUED` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY` `11.04.2013` `DEPARTMENT)`	`OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED` `ISSUED BY GOVT OF KERALA (TAXES G`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY` `01.06.2018` `DEPARTMENT)`	`OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED` `ISSUED BY GOVT OF KERALA (TAXES "G"`
`Exhibit P7`	`WEB COPY O` `NO.18110/20`	`F JUDGEMENT DATED 09.07.2019 IN WP` `16`
`Exhibit P7a`	`TRUE COPY` `BEARING NU` `PETITIONER`	`OF THE CISF PENSIONER'S LIQUOR CARDS` `MBER 936 IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit1 P7b`	`TRUE COPY` `BEARING NU` `PETITIONER`	`OF THE CISF PENSIONER'S LIQUOR CARDS` `MBER 345 IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P7c`	`TRUE COPY` `BEARING NU` `PETITIONER`	`OF THE CISF PENSIONER'S LIQUOR CARDS` `MBER 1027 IN RESPECT OF THE 3RD` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`

¶172

WP(C) Nos.10204/2023, 13691/2023 & 8183/2024

¶173

¶174

Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 6/2022 DATED
02.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG
WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION COPY.
Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
14.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
16.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

¶175

Exhibit R2(a)True copy of the CRPF Standing Order No.
04/2018 dated 20.02.2018
Exhibit R2(b)True copy of the order No 27011/26/ 2019/ R
dated 04.03.2023
Exhibit R2(c)True copy of the minutes of meeting dated
06.04.2021
Exhibit R2(d)True copy of the letter No. 27011/ 130/2021-R
and W dated 17.05.2021
Exhibit R2(e)True copy of the CISF HQr letter No.
E-42099/KPKB/CLMS/WELFARE/2021-16979dated
23.06.2021
Exhibit R2(f)True copy of the meeting minutes dated
05.08.2021
Exhibit R2(g)True copy of the meeting dated 09.02.2022

Sree Kumar P.P v. Union of India Represented by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Kumar P.P v. Union of India Represented by Its Secretary

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

R.Sasidharan Vs District Police Chief

Farsana K. Vs the District Collector, Malappuram & Chairman

Pious Antony Vs the State of Kerala

Ammukutty Amma @ Kunhukutty Amma Vs Nandini.P

Cisf Ex – Service Welfare Association Vs Union of India

Vijay Construction, Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary