Rama U Vs State of Kerala

¶1

2025:KER:24129

¶2

¶3

WP(C) No.9251 of 2015

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶7

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

WP(C) NO. 9251 OF 2015

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

RAMA U, AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.LATE VITTAPPA POOJARI, NEAR U P SCHOOL,
UDYAVAR, MANJESWARAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT AND
PRESENT ADDRESS: ADVOCATE C/O.ADVOCATE B
NANADKISHORE, CHUCH BUILDING,
KODIALBAIL,MANGALORE 575003.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM 695 001.

¶14

2 SECRETARY

¶15

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (A) DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

3 THE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014.

¶17

4 DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, VASANTH NAGAR, KASARAGOD 671 121.

¶18

5 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KASARAGOD 671 121

¶19

6 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, VASATH NAGAR, KASARAGOD 671121.

¶20

¶21

2025:KER:24129

¶22

WP(C) No.9251 of 2015

¶23

7 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KASARGOD 671 121.

¶24

8 VILLAGE OFFICER, ICHILANGOD GROUP VILLAGE OFFICE, UDYAVARA POST, MANJESWAR 671 323.

¶25

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶26

OTHER PRESENT:

¶27

SMT.RESHMI.K.M,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

2025:KER:24129

¶31

WP(C) No.9251 of 2015

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Dated this the 20th day of March, 2025

¶34

The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P10 Government Order dated 19.12.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that the request of the petitioner seeking prosecution sanction against the Officers, who allegedly committed forgery in the records of Procurement and Cultivation Register kept in the Taluk Office, was turned down by the Government as per Ext.P10.

¶35

The petitioner’s father was the owner and has been in possession and enjoyment of properties in Re.Sy.No.94/7 of Udayavar Village. There were certain disputes between the father of the petitioner and his counterpart with respect to the properties in question in OS No.36/1983 before the Sub Court, Kasaragod. The suit was for partition between the co-owners. For pursuing the said case, the father of the petitioner required the Register pertaining to Food Grains Cultivation. In order to prove the entitlement, the extract of the Food Grains Cultivation Register was necessary. However, the Register was forged by some of the Officials. In the meanwhile, the father of the petitioner expired on 14.06.2012. Therefore, the petitioner

¶36

2025:KER:24129

¶37

¶38

WP(C) No.9251 of 2015

¶39

sought action against the person who prepared the Food Grains Cultivation Register.

¶40

The case was registered against the person who prepared the forged Food Grains Cultivation Register. However, the 5^th respondent sent a reply that since the Register in question was not available in the office, action cannot be taken. An appeal has been preferred, which was also disposed of stating that the said Register was not available. Under such circumstances, the petitioner preferred revision before the Government. In response, the Government issued Ext.P10 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P10 order, the petitioner preferred this writ petition seeking direction to set aside Ext.P10 order and seeking action against the Orders passed by the District Supply Officer, Kasaragod and the District Collector, Kasaragod.

¶41

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that in fact, the procurement of paddy has been repealed by the Government in the year 1981 and the Cultivation Register kept in the Taluk Office was returned to the Village Office concerned in 1985 itself. It was also submitted that the Officer, who allegedly committed forgery is no more. This is the circumstance in which the Government has turned

¶42

¶43

2025:KER:24129

¶44

WP(C) No.9251 of 2015

¶45

down the request for prosecution. This fact has been cited in the counter affidavit preferred by the 2^nd respondent. The order passed by the Government also mentioned therein.

¶46

I have heard Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Rashmi K.M., the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶47

Going by the impugned order passed by the Government, it appears that the Government has assigned specific reason for declining the request made by the petitioner. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order are relevant and the same read as follows:

¶48

“5) The District Supply Officer, Kasaragod vide letter read as fifth above has reported that Government repealed procurement of paddy in 1980-81 and cultivation registers kept in Taluk Supply Office were returned to Village Offices concerned in 1985. The Tahsildar, Kasaragod vide letter No.9680/12/B1/KDIs dated, 18.08.12 informed the petitioner that no action against the alleged forgery of the documents could be initiated from Taluk Office. The Taluk Supply Officer, Kasaragod also reported that the Taluk Supply Officer who served the office during the period in which, the document, alleged to have forged was issued, is no more. Consequent to the repealing of procurement of paddy, the Special Village assistants who served in the

¶49

2025:KER:24129

¶50

¶51

WP(C) No.9251 of 2015

¶52

Taluk Supply Office were also returned to their parent department ie. Revenue Department. It is not possible for the Civil Supplies Department to proceed against the officers.

¶53

The genuineness of the documents produced before the court can be ascertained only on verification with the original documents. Both the District Supply Officer, Kasaragod and District Collector, Kasaragod had categorically stated in their proceedings read above that food grain cultivation registers are not available at Taluk Supply Office, Kasaragod at present.”

¶54

This is the circumstances in which the petitioner’s request was turned down. Going by the aforementioned paragraphs, it is clear that the original documents are not available in the office. In the absence of the original document the comparison with the alleged forged document is not possible. Therefore, practically there is no solution. Moreover, I do not find any point in interfering with the orders passed by the appropriate authority as per Ext.P10, since there is no contention with respect to the violation of principles of natural justice and there is no contention that the order passed by the Government exceeds its jurisdiction or the order passed by the Government is perversive.

¶55

¶56

2025:KER:24129

¶57

WP(C) No.9251 of 2015

¶58

Under such circumstances, this Court cannot interfere with Ext.P10 order on the aforementioned reasons and hence,

¶59

the writ petition is dismissed.

sd/-

P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

das

WP(C) No.9251 of 2015

¶65

2025:KER:24129

¶66

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9251/2015

¶67

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶68

P1: PHOTO COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONERS
FATHER SHRI.VITTAPPA POOJARY

¶69

P2: PHOTOCOPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 14/2/1976
ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD II.

¶70

P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/05/2012 OF THE 7TH
RESPONDENT

¶71

P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 7TH
RESPONDENT DT. 29/5/2012.

¶72

P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/08/2012 OF THE 7TH
RESPONDENT.

¶73

P6: PHOTOCOPY FO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT SUPPLY
OFFICER, KASARAGOD DATED 22/04/2013 .

¶74

P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD DATED 10/4/2013.

¶75

P8: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT

¶76

P9: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.20781/2014 DATED
27/8/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

¶77

P10: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER G.O(RT) NO.394/2014/F & CSD
DATED 19/12/2014 OF THE GOVERNMENT

Rama U v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama U v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju Mathew Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Chakola Homes Pvt. Ltd, Vs the Secretary, Corporation of Cochin

Radha Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala

Bhavani Madhavan Vs the Secretary, Local Self Government Department

Sainaba Kasim Vs the Deputy Labour Officer

Benny Markose Vs State of Kerala