Kerala High Court
R.Jai Krishnan vs The Kannur Co-Operative Spinning Mill on 28 March, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1941
WP(C).No. 21319 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
R.JAI KRISHNAN
S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, KRISHNASREE, T.C.
NO.39/1442 (1), KOOTAMVILA LANE-3, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.BABY
SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE KANNUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILL
POST BOX NO.2005, P.O. CHOVVA, KANNUR-6, REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER.
2 THE MALABAR CO-OPERATIVE TEXTILES LTD. MALCOTEX
KARTHALA CHUNGAM, ATHAVANAD P.O., MALAPPURAM-676301,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD.
VAZHANI P.O., VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR-680589.
4 ALAPUZHA CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD.
KAREELA KULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPUZHA-690572, REPRESENTED
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
5 MALAPPURAM CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING LTD.
P.B. NO.206, DOWN HILL P.O., MALAPPURAM-676519, MALAPPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
6 P.S. SREEKUMAR
817/C, MANASWINI, SHANKAR NAGAR, NEERMANMANKARA, P.O.
KAIMANAM, TRIVANDRUM-695040.
7 C. R. RAMESH
NARAYANEEYAM, VENGADU P.O., KOOTHUPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT-
670643.
8 DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES
DIRECTORATE OF HANDLOOM AND TEXTILE, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
WP(C).No. 21319 of 2018
2
9 THE DIRECTOR
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, PMG, VIKASH BHAVAN
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
10 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO INDUSTRIES (C)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY ADVS.
LATHA ANAND
SMT.LATHA ANAND-SC
SMT.C.S.SHEEJA-SR.GP
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2019,
ALONG WITH WP(C).31684/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 21319 of 2018
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims that he was working as the General Manager/Chief Executive Officer of the 4 th respondent - Alappuzha Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., and that, at the time when this writ petition was filed, he had been kept out of service on account of a disciplinary action. He concedes that the disciplinary action is now over and that he has been reverted as a "Maintenance Supervisor", presently under the services of the 3rd respondent - Trichur Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd.
2. The grievances of the petitioner in this case appear to be impelled against respondents 6 and 7, who are presently holding office as the Managing Directors-in-charge of the 3 rd respondent - Trichur Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., and the 2nd respondent - Malabar Co-operative Textiles Ltd., respectively.
3. According to the petitioner, respondents 6 and 7 have been given charge as the Managing Director of the entities afore mentioned, even though the mandatory vigilance clearance had not been obtained before such appointments and notwithstanding the fact that various disciplinary enquiries against them were pending. He adds that they are also not WP(C).No. 21319 of 2018 4 qualified to hold the post of Managing Directors in either of these entities.
4. Even when I hear Sri.P.V.Baby, the learned counsel for the petitioner as afore, I fail to understand the locus of the petitioner in having filed this writ petition or in making these allegations against respondents 6 and 7, because the petitioner does not have a case that he is presently qualified to be appointed as a Managing Director of either of respondents 2 or 3; particularly because he concedes that he has now been reverted from the post of General Manager to the post of Maintenance Supervisor. Of course, it may be true that he has challenged this reversion in a separate proceedings, but as long as he continues as a Maintenance Supervisor, he can claim no eligibility to be appointed either as a General Manager or as a Managing Director of any company or society under the Government.
5. That apart, the fact remains that respondents 6 and 7 were appointed as the General Managers of the 4 th respondent - Alappuzha Co-operative Mills Ltd., and the 1 st respondent - Kannur Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., respectively, several WP(C).No. 21319 of 2018 5 years ago, and it is admitted that even though the appointment of the 6th respondent in such capacity had been challenged by the petitioner before this Court, by filing W.P.(C)No.23870 of 2013, the same has been dismissed. Obviously, therefore, challenge to the appointment of the 6 th respondent as the General Manager of the 4 th respondent is no longer available to the petitioner; and as regards the appointment of the 7 th respondent as the General Manager of the 1 st respondent - Kannur Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., is concerned, the pleadings are completely silent as to when he was appointed and as to why his appointment has now been challenged so belatedly. Pertinently, Sri.P.V.Baby, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been unable to tell me the date on which, the 7 th respondent had been appointed as the General Manager and he concedes that this information was not available to his client at the time when this writ petition was filed.
6. I, therefore, cannot find any legally justifiable reason for the petitioner to now mount a challenge against respondents 6 and 7 as regards their appointment as General Managers of respondents 4 and 1 respectively; and consequently, the only WP(C).No. 21319 of 2018 6 surviving question is whether their appointment as Managing Directors-in-charge of respondents 3 and 2 respectively, are in any manner vitiated.
7. As I have indicated above, the contention of Sri.P.V.Baby is that respondents 6 and 7 have been appointed in such capacity without obtaining a vigilance clearance and notwithstanding the fact that certain disciplinary enquiries were pending against them. However, Smt.Latha Anand, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 6, submits that all such enquires against respondents 6 and 7 had been closed and that they had been honourably exonerated.
8. Smt.C.S.Sheeja, the learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that on account of the abysmal financial position of respondents 2 and 3 entities, full time appointments to the post of Managing Directors to these cannot be considered by the Government at this point of time. She says that it was, solely to avoid any further financial burden to the said entities, that respondents 6 and 7, who are presently the General Managers of respondents 4 and 1 respectively, were given additional charge and that the WP(C).No. 21319 of 2018 7 petitioner does not obtain any locus to challenge this, particularly because he does not have the entitlement or qualification at this point of time to claim appointment either as a General Manager or as the Chief Executive Officer of any Society or company under the Government. She, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed with costs.
9. When I assess the submissions made before me as afore, it becomes ineluctable that the locus of the petitioner, to challenge the appointment of respondents 6 and 7 as the Managing Directors-in-charge of respondents 2 and 3, is highly suspect; more so because he has no case that he is eligible to be so appointed. This writ petition therefore, assumes a colour of a virtual public interest litigation, which however, has been clearly filed in private interest; and I see no reason why the petitioner has mounted this challenge, particularly when Smt.Latha Anand submits vehemently that all disciplinary enquiries against respondents 6 and 7 have now been closed, finding them not guilty of any charges imputed against them.
10. That said, the mere absence of a vigilance clearance, even if this is true, would not vitiate the appointments of WP(C).No. 21319 of 2018 8 respondents 6 and 7 because, they have only been asked to be in charge as the Managing Directors of respondents 2 and 3 entities and as long as they are not in a financial position to accommodate a full time Managing Director, respondents 6 and 7 would continue to be only in charge of the office of its Managing Directors, and too under the watchful gaze of the Controlling Authorities. Since this arrangement is only as a method of avoiding further expenditure to the entities concerned, I do not deem it appropriate or prudent to set aside the appointment of respondents 6 and 7, merely on this ground, even if this allegation is true.
In the afore circumstances, I dismiss this writ petition finding the allegations against respondents 6 and 7 to be without merit; but taking note of the peculiar circumstances involved, refrain from imposing any costs as prayed for by the learned Senior Government Pleader.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp JUDGE
WP(C).No. 21319 of 2018
9
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21319/2018
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.4.2018
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES CONTAINING
CLAUSE 24 OF THE BYELAW OF THE KANNUR CO-
OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PROPOSED BYELAW CONTAINING CLAUSE 31 OF THE MALABAR CO-OPERATIVE TEXTILES LTD.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 9.2.2010.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.9.1999.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 13.10.2016 OF THE CABINET MEETING.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 19.9.2014 ISSUED TO 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 14.7.2014 OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE QUESTION AND ANSWER RELATING TO QUESTION NO.637 DATED 5.6.2018 OF THE CABINET MEETING.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE QUESTION AND ANSWER RELATING TO QUESTION NO.2429 DATED 12.6.2018 OF THE CABINET MEETING.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
WP(C).No. 21319 of 201810 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4A TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 29.06.2018 APPEARED IN THE NEWSPAPER DAILY 'SUPRABHATHAM' EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 29/06/2018 APPEARED IN THE NEWSPAPER DAILY 'SUPRABHATHAM.' EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 29/06/2018 APPEARED IN THE NEWSPAPER DAILY 'SUPRABHATHAM'.
EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 29/06/2018 APPEARED IN THE NEWSPAPER DAILY 'SUPRABHATHAM.'