Disposed

Vincent P.T. v. Food Corporation of India

Kerala HC20 Mar 2024WP(C)/3859/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the claim for 'Attikooli' by labourers is a traditional payment without statutory authority and quantification. It is for the labourers to initiate necessary action, and the Court will not evaluate the merits or fetter the judgment with observations on this specific controversy.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's contention regarding 'Attikooli' was left open; the learned counsel for the respondent was granted liberty to initiate necessary action.

Vincent P.T. Vs Food Corporation of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

W.P.(C) NO.3859 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VINCENT P.T.,

¶8

AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. M.O. THOMAS, PADIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALLICHIRA P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 574.

¶9

BY ADVS.VINOD MADHAVAN

¶10

SHARATH S.PUTHENPARAMPAN A.KEVIN THOMAS M.V.BOSE

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.

¶13

2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 531.

¶14

3 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, COMMISSIONERATE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.

¶15

4 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001.

¶16

5 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 019.

¶17

W.P.(C) No.3859 of 2022

¶18

-:2:-

¶19

6 THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, MAVELI TOWER, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 010.

¶20

7 ASSISTANT/DEPOT MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, SUPPLYCO DEPOT, VAIKOM TALUK, PALLIKAVALA, THALAYOLAPARAMPU, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 605.

¶21

8 SHAJI, LABOURER, FCI DEPOT, CHINAGAVANAM, RESIDING AT PLAMPARAMBIL, PALLOM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 007.

¶22

R1&R2 ADV.ANU THANKAM MATHEW

¶23

R5-R7 ADV.MOLLY JACOB, STANDING COUNSEL

¶24

R8 ADV.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

¶25

ADVS.N.SANTHA V.VARGHESE PETER JOSE CHRISTO S.A.ANAND K.N.REMYA L.ANNAPOORNA VISHNU V.K. ABHIRAMI K.UDAY KURUVILLA SABU CHRISTY

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

W.P.(C) No.3859 of 2022

¶28

-:3:-

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2024

¶31

When this matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the party respondent argued that the stand of the SUPPLYCO, that all controversy between him and the petitioner have been resolved, is contrary to facts because, going by the contract between them, “Attikooli” was payable by the latter. He, however, conceded, to a pointed question from this Court, that “Attikooli” is only a traditional payment and not a levy which has the authority of law and that it has not been quantified also; though asserting that some of the documents would indicate what was the payment made in the past.

¶32

I am afraid that this argument cannot find favour in law because, if the labourers have a claim against the SUPPLYCO, or the contractor, for anything called “Attikooli”, it is for them to initiate necessary action, which will not be fettered by the observations in this judgment. When the afore liberty is available to the party respondent, I

¶33

W.P.(C) No.3859 of 2022

¶34

-:4:-

¶35

do not think this Court need to enter into the evaluation of

¶36

the same on its merits; and I, therefore, leave it open.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶39

bpr

¶40

W.P.(C) No.3859 of 2022

¶41

-:5:-

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3859/2022

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶44

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 13.09.2021 EXECUTED BY THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION AND THE PETITIONER.

¶45

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.01.2022 OF THE DEPOT MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION.

¶46

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE DATED 17.12.2021 SIGNED BY THE 1ST AND 3RD RESPONDENTS.

¶47

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.01.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3, ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.01.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENT 2. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.01.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENT 4.

¶48

¶49

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2021. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDERS DATED 06.02.2021.

¶50

W.P.(C) No.3859 of 2022

¶51

-:6:-

¶52

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶53

Exhibit R8(a) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF TENDER NOTICE NO.NFSA5-17016/20 DATED 15.07.2020 PUBLISHED BY SUPPLYCO. Exhibit R8(b) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.2/2017/F & CSD DATED 16.02.2017. Exhibit R8(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 23.11.2016. Exhibit R8(d) TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.CS2714/2017 DATED 01.04.2017 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit R8(e) TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.CS2714/2017 DATED 23.06.2017 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Vincent P.T. v. Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincent P.T. v. Food Corporation of India

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

Thiru Kochi Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India

Kfin Syndicate Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India

Jbjr Suraksha Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India

Francis Vs State of Kerala

Ripson Das Vs State of Kerala

M.Pechimuthu Vs Chief Electoral Officer