Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943 PETITIONER: IBRAHIMKUTTY E.P. UTHIYOOR HOUSE, MATTANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670 593, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HASHIM.T.P., S/O. SOOPY, THAYALEPURAYIL HOUSE, IRIKKUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 593 BY ADV GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001 2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, KSTP DIVISION, BABY BEACH ROAD, KANNUR,PIN-670 013 3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR, PIN-670 001 4 THE TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 101 5 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 101 6 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 703 7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANDAMKUNNU VILLAGE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN- SRI. ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he was awarded with a contract to cut and remove 296 trees from the Thalassery - Valavupara Road Puramboke by the 2nd respondent - Executive Engineer, PWD, KSTP Division and that he completed the work satisfactorily pursuant thereto. He says that, however, subsequently, an allegation was made against him that he had, during the afore work, cut and removed 14 Teakwood trees standing in the Revenue lands and was imposed with a penalty of over Rupees six lakhs through Ext.P7, which was challenged by him in WP(C) NO.21636/2018, culminating in Ext.P9 judgment.
2. The petitioner submits that, as is evident from Ext.P9 judgment, this Court found that he had not been heard while the penalty has been imposed against him; and thus the competent Authority was directed to conduct a proper enquiry, before finalising the liability against him.
3. Sri.Georgekutty Mathew - learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that, inspite of the specific directions in Ext.P9 judgment, the 4th respondent - Tahsildar has now issued Ext.P10 merely reiterating what
has been stated in Ext.P8 and consequently prayed that it be set aside. He contended that Ext.P10 is egregiously improper because no
enquiry had been conducted by the Tahsildar, but that he has solely gone through the statements made by the KSTP, to hold that his client is responsible for cutting and removing 8 of the Teakwood trees aforementioned, while admitting that 6 of them were cut and auctioned by the KSTP themselves without sanction from the Revenue Department. He predicated that, therefore, it is evident that Ext.P10 cannot obtain favour in law and pleaded that this writ petition be allowed.
4. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader - Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan,
submitted that Ext.P10 is an appealable order
and that the petitioner, therefore, cannot maintain this writ petition. Thereafter, on the merits of the matter, he submitted that Ext.P10 perspicuously states the reasons why the Tahsildar has found against the petitioner and that since it is a speaking order, it is upto him to assail it appropriately as per law.
5. When I evaluate the afore rival
submissions, it is without doubt that, normally, this Court would not intervene with the merits of Ext.P10, since it is an appealable order. However, what is relevant in Ext.P10 is that it has proceeded on the assumption that petitioner is guilty of cutting and removing 8 Teakwood trees, without making an enquiry whether said trees were part of the 296 trees mentioned by the KSTP in the contract. This enquiry is vital because, had the petitioner removed the trees as instructed by the KSTP, then the liability would perhaps not be on him, but on the said entity. This is also pertinent because, as is manifest from Ext.P10, the Tahsildar has found that among the 14 Teak trees, 6 were in fact cut and auctioned by the KSTP themselves.
6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that
the matter will require to be reconsidered, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, leading to a proper enquiry being conducted as to whether the Teak trees alleged to have been cut and removed by him were authorised to be done by the KSTP in the contract in question.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P10; with a consequential direction to the 4th respondent to reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as also to the competent Officials of the KSTP; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
I make it clear that I have not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions and that the observations in this judgment are only intended for this Court to arrive at the decision as above, and for no other. Needless to say, the 4th respondent will be at liberty to consider every vital and germane aspect in its proper perspective, but after verifying whether the trees in question were part of the contract entered into by the petitioner with the KSTP. In order to obtain an expeditious compliance of the afore directions, I direct the petitioner and the competent Authority of the KSTP to mark appearance in the office of the 4th respondent - Tahsildar at 11 A.M. on 03.02.2022; on which day, said Authority will either hear them or fix another convenient date for such purpose and complete the proceedings within the time frame above.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/28/01/2022 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1278/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 20.08.2013 TOWARDS VAT AND FOREST TAX Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.11.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.04.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.21636/2018 DATED 20.02.2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF PRICE OF TREES DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE RANGE FOREST THALASSERY Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT