Allowed

K Manoharan, v. the Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC12 Feb 2024WP(C)/718/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A registered plumber of the Kerala Water Authority was debarred from further work based on a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau secret investigation report alleging overcharging of customers. The court found no fixed upper limit for plumber charges, no evidence of bribery or fraud, and that the report was preliminary and made without hearing the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed and the

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 order set aside; petitioner declared free of impediment to working as a registered plumber, subject to other legal requirements; right to initiate action under Ext.R6(a) left open.

K Manoharan, Vs the Kerala Water Authority — 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

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 23RD MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 718 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K MANOHARAN, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O. KUNJU PILLAI, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, AYICKAD,
CHEPPAD POST OFFICE, CHINGOLI VILLAGE, CHEPPAD,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE 690 507.

¶8

BY ADVS.
HARIMOHAN

¶9

MADONA RAJ

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE 695 033.

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (VIGILANCE), THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, WATER AUTHORITY CAMPUS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE -695 033.

¶13

3THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE 688 001.

¶14

4 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE 688 001.

¶15

5THE THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
OFFICE OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA JUNCTION,
THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA POST OFFICE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE 690 515,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

WP(C) NO. 718 OF 2022

¶17

-2-

¶18

6GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
SECRETARIAT, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
NEAR CENTRAL STADIUM JUNCTION,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN CODE;-695001.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.

¶19

SRI. GEORGIE JOHNY,SC,
SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 718 OF 2022

¶22

-3-

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner is stated to be a registered
plumber under the Kerala Water Authority (KWA)
and impugns Ext.P2 order of theirs, whereby, he

¶25

has been virtually ‘blacklisted’, from carrying

¶26

on any further work on their behalf.

¶27

2.Smt.T.A.Anjali – learned counsel for the

¶28

petitioner, pointed out that, through Ext.P2, it

¶29

has been alleged that her client had been
proceeded against secretly by the Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Bureau, on the basis of a

¶30

complaint received, that he had overcharged the
customers of the ‘KWA’, while undertaking work
to obtain to them water connections; and that,

¶31

based on the same, the Government seems to have

¶32

instructed the ‘KWA’ to remove him from all

¶33

further works on their behalf. She explained

¶34

that it is, therefore, that her client maintains

¶35

that he has been virtually ‘blacklisted’, though

¶36

WP(C) NO. 718 OF 2022

¶37

-4-

¶38

there has been no specific order to such effect
– but, nevertheless leading to the same
consequences on him. She thus prayed that Ext.P2
be set aside.

¶39

3.Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George – learned
Government Pleader, in response, submitted that
the facts of the case are not as simple as they
have now been projected by Smt.T.A.Anjali,
taking me through Ext.R6(a) - which is the
Secret Investigation Report of the Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Bureau; and further orders of

¶40

the Government consequent to it, namely
Exts.R6(b) and R6(c).

¶41

4.The learned Government Pleader impressed

¶42

upon me that, in Ext.R6(a) report of the

¶43

Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, it has
been found that the petitioner had overcharged
the customers of the ‘KWA’, though there was no
evidence to show that he had taken such money

¶44

WP(C) NO. 718 OF 2022

¶45

for the purpose of bribing any official. He

¶46

submitted that, therefore, the Government
thought it necessary to issue Ext.R6(c) letter

¶47

to the KWA, directing them to debar the

¶48

petitioner from being involved in any further
work; and argued that the said action of the
Government was for good cause, thus praying that
this writ petition be dismissed.

¶49

5.Sri.Georgie Johny – learned Standing
Counsel for the ‘KWA’, submitted that his client
had no other option, but to issue Ext.P2, when
they received Ext.R6(c) recommendations from the
Government of Kerala. He submitted that his
client will, therefore, abide by any direction
to be issued by this Court.

¶50

6.The pleadings on record and the rival
submissions made before this Court would
indicate that the controversy in this case has
its genesis in an apparent Secret Investigation

¶51

WP(C) NO. 718 OF 2022

¶52

-6-

¶53

conducted against the petitioner by the
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, on the
basis of a complaint received by them. However,

¶54

Ext.R6(a) - which is their report dated
01.02.2019 - would show without doubt that, even
as per the existing circulars, a plumber can
charge certain sums from a customer for a water
connection, namely Rs.15/- towards the cost of
theapplicationform;Rs.500/-towards
connection charges, with an additional Rs.500/-,

¶55

if the distance is more than 30 metres;
Rs.1000/- towards expenses for the stamp paper
for the agreement etc; Rs.1700/- towards water
metre charges and Rs.225/- towards typing
charges and such other.

¶56

7.The petitioner is alleged to have

¶57

collected sums between Rs.6500/- and Rs.7500/-

¶58

from two customers; but it is then unequivocally

¶59

stated in the report itself that there is no

¶60

WP(C) NO. 718 OF 2022

¶61

-7-

¶62

upper limit fixed as the service charges of a

¶63

plumber, even going by the circular of the
‘KWA’, particularly that bearing No.1/2012.

¶64

8.Pertinently, Ext.R6(a) further records

¶65

that the person who made the complaint against
the petitioner, was not identified or traced;

¶66

and that there was no evidence to show that the
petitioner has collected the amounts either for
bribing officials, or that he had misrepresented
to have rectified leaks in domestic connections,
even though such works in the main lines.

¶67

9.Interestingly, after entering into the
afore findings, a recommendation is then made in
Ext.R6(a), that the petitioner be kept away from

¶68

further works by the ‘KWA’, pending further
action. Thereafter, the Government is stated to
have accepted the afore report and to have
issued Ext.R6(b) letter to the Additional Chief
Secretary, recommending further action. This led

¶69

WP(C) NO. 718 OF 2022

¶70

-8-

¶71

to Ext.R6(c) letter to be issued by the
Additional Chief Secretary of the Government of
Kerala to the ‘KWA’, inter alia, instructing
them to keep the petitioner away from further
work under their aegis.

¶72

10.It must, however, be borne in mind that,
even to a pointed question from this Court, the
learned Government Pleader was unable to inform
me whether any further action had been taken
against the petitioner based on Ext.R6(a); and
this is crucial because, the said report is
stated to be based on a ‘Secret Investigation’
and obviously, did not involve the petitioner in
any manner.

¶73

11.As matters now stand, the petitioner

¶74

does not know what the allegations against him
are, or the manner in which he was investigated

¶75

against, except for what is reported in
Ext.R6(a), which is, concededly, not a final

¶76

WP(C) NO. 718 OF 2022

¶77

-9-

¶78

investigative report, but only a preliminary

¶79

one, under the provisions of the applicable Act.

¶80

12.Therefore, even when the petitioner has

¶81

not been found guilty of any charges, he has

¶82

been kept away from work by the ‘KWA’, on the
dictate of the Government, merely because there
is a yet uncorroborated finding against him,
reflected in Ext.R6(a) preliminary investigation
report. Normally, such reports ought to lead to
further investigation, or to mulcting of charges
against the petitioner; but none of this has
been admittedly done - at least nothing being
available on record in this case, as of now.

¶83

13.In the afore circumstances and

¶84

particularly because Ext.R6(a) itself records
that there is no upper limit to the expenses
that a plumber could have charged as per the
circular of the ‘KWA’; and when there are no
allegations against the petitioner that he has

¶85

WP(C) NO. 718 OF 2022

¶86

-10-

¶87

caused misrepresentation or committed fraud on

¶88

any customer, except that he has charged certain
sums from them, I cannot find favour with
Ext.P2.

¶89

14.This is especially because, when the
Authorities themselves say that the fees of the
plumber have not been specifically fixed, any
allegation that he has charged more, or that he
has extorted money from a customer, ought to be
established through proper evidence and means,

¶90

rather than relying upon a preliminary
Investigation Report, the contents of which, as
I have already said above, remain unproved even
as of now and which have been settled without

¶91

any opportunity having been given to the
petitioner.

¶92

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and
set aside Ext.P2; consequently declaring that
there cannot be any impediment to the petitioner

¶93

WP(C) NO. 718 OF 2022

¶94

working as a registered plumber, however,
subject to all other requirements and

¶95

imperatives in law being satisfied.

¶96

Needless to say, the right of the competent

¶97

Authority to initiate action based on Ext.R6(a),
if so advised, has not been interdicted in this
judgment; and they are left open to be invoked
and taken forward, if required, as per law, for
which purpose, all rival contentions are also
left undecided.

¶98

Sd/-

¶99

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶100

JUDGE

¶101

akv

¶102

WP(C) NO. 718 OF 2022

¶103

-12-

¶104

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 718/2022

¶105

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶106

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED LICENSE ISSUED ON
28.12.2020
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED LICENSE ISSUED ON
28.12.2020.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED COMMUNICATION
ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
03.01.2022, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
03.01.2022, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
03.01.2022, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE DTPA RENAL SCINTIGRAPHY
OF THE PETITIONER DATED 12.06.2019.

¶107

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶108

EXHIBIT R6(A):A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SENT TO THE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DATED
23.03.20219
EXHIBIT R6(B):A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SEAT TO THE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY ,WATER
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DATED 25.04.2019
EXHIBIT R6(C):A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08-12-2021

K Manoharan, v. the Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Manoharan, v. the Kerala Water Authority

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

Moyyadan Narayani, Vs Kerala State Unorganised Workers Social Security Board

Sumesh Thankachan Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Thalassery

N. Sundareshan Vs State of Kerala

Safeermon a Vs Remla Beevi I

Shine Mathew Vs Remla Beevi . I

Shanavas Vs the Branch Manager, Union Bank of Inida