Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1940 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 38221/2018 of HIGHCOURT APPELLANT/S: DIVAKARAN.V.U. S/O V.N.UNNI, AGED 39 YEARS, VARADIYATTIL HOUSE, KURUCHIKKARA, P.O., MATTAPURAM, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680028 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJESH RESPONDENT/S:
1. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & DIRECTOR,KERALA POLICE ACADEMY (KEPA) RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 631
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (TRAINING)
3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE(TRAINING) BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. TEK CHAND THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:-
JUDGMENT
HRISHIKESH ROY, C.J. The appellant is the Writ Petitioner. He is before us challenging the judgment dated 30.01.2019 in the W.P.(C) No.38221 of 2018.
2. The writ petitioner offered his bid in pursuant to the auction notice dated
23.01.2017 (exhibit P1) for the right to collect the usufructs from the fruit plants in the Kerala Police Academy, Ramavarmapuram, Thrissur. As the highest bidder, he was issued with the work order dated 06.03.2017 (exhibit P2) to collect the usufructs from the fruit trees for a total
sum of Rs.18,500/- plus 4% VAT for the financial year 2017-2018. Subsequently, he was issued the impugned notice on 29.09.2018 (exhibit P3) where it was alleged that the writ petitioner unauthorisedly collected 400-500 numbers of coconuts from the vegetable garden of the Police Academy and those fruit trees were not included in the tender notice (exhibit P1). On this basis, he was held liable to make good the loss by remitting an amount equal to the value of the coconuts.
3. Thus aggrieved, the Writ Petition came to be filed. The learned Single Judge referred to exhibit P1 tender notice to conclude that 51 coconut trees was mentioned in the
said tender notice. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed without entertaining the challenge to the exhibit P3 notice with the observation that, further action in accordance with law has to follow.
4. Before us, the learned Counsel Sri.T.R.Rajesh submits that exhibit P3 notice was
not preceded by any opportunity to the appellant. His specific case is that there are only 51 coconut trees in the entire Police Academy Campus and therefore, no additional usufructs was collected by the petitioner and whatever collection was made, is absolutely in accordance with the order dated 06.03.2017 (exhibit P2) which permits the appellant to collect usufructs from the trees in the Police Academy Campus.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Tek Chand on the other hand -:3:-
submits that exhibit P3 notice should be construed as a demand to make good the loss sustained by the Police Academy, by remitting an amount equal to the value of the additional coconuts and if the petitioner has any grievance against the exhibit P3 notice, he can certainly make his stand clear on the exhibit P3 notice.
6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also taken note of
the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The specific case of the appellant is that only 51 coconut trees were available in the Police Academy Campus and the usufructs collected by him were well within the permission granted by exhibit P2 order (06.03.2017). Therefore, we are of the considered view that instead of requiring the appellant to straightaway remit the amount demanded in the exhibit P3, the said notice should be treated as a show cause notice
to which the appellant may submit his response. The authorities should then afford an opportunity to the appellant and thereafter finalise the issue on merits. With the above limited intervention with the impugned judgment in the W.P.(C) No.38221 of 2018, the Writ Appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above. HRISHIKESH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kkj // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE -:4:-