Allowed

Saidalavi v. the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

Kerala HC22 Jul 2024WP(C)/19475/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Bench allowed a writ petition and quashed an order of the SC/ST Commission. The Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue directions under Ext.P4. The judgment preserved the petitioner’s liability regarding alleged illegal quarrying.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Commission was quashed.

Saidalavi Vs the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY 2024 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19475 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

SAIDALAVI AGED 53 YEARS S/O. POOKUNJIKKOYA THANGAL, EDARIYIL HOUSE, KEEZHUMURI, OORAKAM, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676515 BY ADV K.RAKESH

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1 THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES AYYANKALI BHAVAN, KANAKANAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN - 695003

¶9

2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505

¶10

3 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676306

¶11

4 RAJAN AGED 65 YEARS S/O. PARANGODAN, HOUSE NO.3/555, EDARIPARAMBU, OORAKAM KEEZHUMURI P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676515 BY ADVS. SMT.MARY BENJAMIN, KSCSCST GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.K.SANTHAMMA

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI. P.S. APPU, GP. & SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN, SPL. GP.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No.19475 of 2022

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2024

¶19

The challenge in this writ petition is

¶20

against Ext.P4 order of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Commission. By the impugned order, the Commission had directed the petitioner to comply with the terms of Ext.P5 agreement. As the Commission was found to be having no such power, an interim order was granted.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the 4^th respondent submitted that the quarrying activity conducted by the petitioner has left the 4^th respondent's house in a precarious condition and during this monsoon, the 4^th respondent had to be shifted to a relief camp.

¶22

Learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that, as per the report of the Tahasildar, Tirurangadi, the 4^th respondent has

¶23

W.P.(C) No.19475 of 2022

¶24

been requested to shift from his house as the building was found to be in a dangerous

¶25

condition.

¶26

This Court, in the decision in Vimalan

¶27

and Another v. Kerala State Scheduled Caste and

¶28

Scheduled Tribes Commission, TVM and Others

¶29

[2020 (3) KLT 625] has elaborately dealt with the powers of the SC/ST Commission under Section 9 of the Kerala State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes Act, 2007. Having gone through the facts of this case, I find that the Commission has exceeded in its jurisdiction in issuing the directions at Ext.P4.

¶30

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P4 is quashed.

¶31

I also make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the fourth respondent seeking appropriate remedies, whether it be before the civil or criminal courts, based on

¶32

W.P.(C) No.19475 of 2022

¶33

Ext.P5 and also with respect to the alleged

¶34

illegal quarrying activity conducted by the

petitioner.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/

W.P.(C) No.19475 of 2022

¶40

-5-

¶41

¶42

PETITIONER EXH	IBITS
Exhibit P1	A TRUE	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATE	D 18-
	12-2021 RESPOND	SUBMITTED BY THE ENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDE	4TH NT
Exhibit P2	A TRUE	COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSU	ED BY
	THE 1S DATED 1	T RESPONDENT TO THE PETIT 6-2-2022	IONER
Exhibit P3	A TRUE BY THE 4-3-202	COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBM PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P1 2	ITTED DATED
Exhibit P4	A TRUE	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED	9-3-
	2022,	WHICH WAS SENT ALONG WI	TH A
	COVERIN 1ST RES	G LETTER DATED 6-5-2022 B PONDENT	Y THE
Exhibit P5	A TRUE	COPY OF THE AGREEMENT REF	ERRED
	TO IN	EXHIBIT P4 DATED 17-1	-2022
	ALLEGED PETITIO	LY EXECUTED BETWEEN NER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT	THE

¶43

RESPONDENT EXHI	BITS
Exhibit R4(a)	COPY OF SA EXECUTED BY	LE DEED DATED 16.08.1986 PETITIONER TO R4
Exhibit R4(b)	THE COPY OF OF PETITIONE	ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PLOTS R AND R4
Exhibit R4(c)	THE COPY OF BY R4 TO RDO	COMPLAINT DATED 18.12.2020 , TIRUR
Exhibit R4(d)	THE COPY	OF PROCEEDINGS NO.259/22
	DATED 9.2.22	BY TAHASILDAR TIRUR TO R1
Exhibit R4(e)	THE COPY OF BY INSPECTOR	REPORT OF DATED 6.3.2022 OF POLICE TO R1

Saidalavi v. the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saidalavi v. the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyotiben Hemantbhai Pastagia Vs Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited

Thalavady Grameen Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India

Wellwisher Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India

Pious Antony Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor Vs the State of Kerala

George Mathew Vs Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited