Disposed

Kerala Gandhi Smaraka Nidhi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2024WP(C)/2364/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A charitable society and its secretary sought direction for payment of khadi rebate arrears by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board. The Board admitted the arrears but cited lack of government allocation; the court directed the Industries Secretary to hear all parties and take a final decision within a month, with staggered payment timelines thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to hear petitioners and Board and take final decision within one month; payment timelines of two months (Government to Board) and six weeks (Board to petitioners) fixed if e

Kerala Gandhi Smaraka Nidhi Vs State of Kerala — 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

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2364 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1KERALA GANDHI SMARAKA NIDHI, GANDHI BHAVAN,
THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHAIRMAN,
DR. N. RADHAKRISHNAN,
AGED 79 YEARS, S/O. NEELAKANDA PILLAI,
RESIDING AT NGRA 30, MARAPPALAM, PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695004.

¶7

2DR. N. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 79 YEARS,
S/O. NEELAKANDA KURUP, SECRETARY,
KERALA GANDHI SMARAKA NIDHI,
GANDHI BHAVAN, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695014,
RESIDING AT HARI VIHAR, PALLIKKAL NOORANAD P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690504.

¶8

BY ADVS.
RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA
S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
S.KRISHNA KUMAR (MANGALAM)
SABAD K.H.
SANTHOSH BHASKARAN NAIR
BERTRAND BASIL
RIFSA REBAIE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶11

2 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶12

3 THE SECRETARY, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695035.

¶13

WP(C) NO. 2364 OF 2024

¶14

-2-

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP
SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN, SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 2364 OF 2024

¶18

-3-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioners - first among whom is a
registered Charitable Society and the second
being its Secretary - have approached this
Court, seeking a direction to the respondents,
particularly the 3rd respondent – Secretary,
Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board
(‘Board’, for short), to pay the outstanding
rebate arrears of Rs.1,50,80,643/- to the 1st
among them, within a time frame to be fixed by
this Court.

¶21

2.Sri.Raju Vadakkekara – learned counsel
for the petitioners, submitted that the rebate
that has now been sought for by the petitioners
is entitled to them, which cannot be denied by
the respondents; and that, therefore, his

¶22

clientshavealsopreferredExt.P11

¶23

representation before the 3rd respondent, and
alternatively plead that same be directed to be

¶24

WP(C) NO. 2364 OF 2024

¶25

taken up and disposed of without any avoidable
delay.

¶26

3.Sri.N.RajagopalanNair- learned

¶27

Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, however,
submitted that his client admits to the rebate
arrears due to the petitioners; but that they
are incapacitated from paying the same because

¶28

they have not yet received the financial
allocation from the Government of Kerala. He
submitted that, as soon as the Government of
Kerala makes such provision, petitioners’ claims
will be honoured.

¶29

4.The learned Government Pleader –

¶30

Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, submitted that he

¶31

does not have instructions whether the financial
allocation, as sought for by the 3rd respondent
has been made over to the ‘Board’; but that, if
it has not been done, then the Government will

¶32

consider the same and take a final decision

¶33

WP(C) NO. 2364 OF 2024

¶34

thereon without any further delay.

¶35

5.Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, however,
submitted that, since there is no confirmation
as to whether the petitioners are entitled to

¶36

the rebate, or if the 3rd respondent is still
eligible to obtain the same from the Government,
such issues may also be left open to be decided
appropriately by the 2nd respondent.

¶37

6.When I evaluate and consider the afore
rival submissions, it is evident that, on one
hand, the petitioners say that they are entitled
to the rebate as sought for by them under the
statutory Scheme and as per the Circulars of the
Government; while, the 3rd respondent takes the

¶38

stand that, even though they want to pay, they

¶39

are unable to do so because, they have not

¶40

received the fiscal allocation from the

¶41

Government.

¶42

7.As far as the Government is concerned,

¶43

WP(C) NO. 2364 OF 2024

¶44

they say that they will consider the claim of

¶45

the petitioners and take a final decision
thereon without further delay.

¶46

8.I am, therefore, of the firm view that

¶47

the 2nd respondent must be directed to hear the
2nd petitioner, as also the 3rd respondent, and
take a final decision with respect to the claim
of the former, within a time frame to be fixed
by this Court.

¶48

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and
direct the 2nd respondent to immediately hear the
2nd petitioner and the 3rd respondent with respect
to the claim of the petitioners, qua the rebate
arrears; thus culminating in an appropriate

¶49

order and necessary action thereon, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.

¶50

I make it clear that, if, through the afore

¶51

WP(C) NO. 2364 OF 2024

¶52

exercise, it is found that the Government is
obligated to pay the 3rd respondent any amounts,
then same shall be disbursed to them within a
period of two months thereafter; with a
corollary direction to the latter to disburse
the eligible amounts to the petitioners, within
a period of six weeks on receipt of such
amounts.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

akv

¶57

WP(C) NO. 2364 OF 2024

¶58

-8-

¶59

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2364/2024

¶60

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶61

`EXHIBIT- P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT OF` `REBATE DUE TO THE PETITIONER'S` `ORGANIZATION FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT` `FOR THE YEAR 2017 TO 2021 SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONER ORGANIZATION TO THE` `AUTHORITIES CONCERNED DATED 04/08/2021`
`EXHIBIT- P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION,` `DTD.10/6/2021, SUBMITTED TO THE` `HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA,` `BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ORGANIZATION.`
`EXHIBIT- P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION,` `DTD.10/6/2021, SUBMITTED TO THE` `INDUSTRIAL MINISTER, BY THE CHAIRMAN` `OF THE ORGANIZATION.`
`EXHIBIT- P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `29/07/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST` `PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBI P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED` `06/08/2021, SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE` `PETITIONER ORGANIZATION.`
`EXHIBIT- P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED` `13/08/2021 SUBMITTED TO THE HONORABLE` `CHIEF MINISTER BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT- P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER SENT TO THE` `HONOURABLE INDUSTRIAL MINISTER ON` `16/08/2021 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT- P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `08/12/2021 SUBMITTED TO THE` `CHAIRPERSON OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT BY` `THE 2ND PETITIONER.`

¶62

WP(C) NO. 2364 OF 2024

¶63

-9-

¶64

EXHIBIT- P9TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
21/02/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRPERSON OF 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT- P10TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION, DATED
25/08/2022, TO THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT, KHADI BOARD.
EXHIBIT- P11TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION, DATED
18/8/2023, SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT- P12TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED
BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP©
NO.1277 OF 2024, DATED 12/01/2024.

Kerala Gandhi Smaraka Nidhi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Gandhi Smaraka Nidhi 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

Kunhandi Pangottil, Vs State of Kerala

M.P. Jolly Vs K.Biju.Ias

M/S Parthas Thiruvananthapuram Represented by Managing Partner N.Lakshman Sreenivas Vs South Indian Bank, Represented by the Chief Manager

Gopalakrishnan v Vs State Bank of India SBI

N.Sreedharan Nair Vs C.S. Prashoban

Chandini C K Vs the State of Kerala