Kerala High Court
The District Collector vs Ravidas on 1 July, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WA.NO. 1961 OF 2016 () IN WP(C).9297/2016
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9297/2016
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 01-07-2016
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1, 3, 4 & 5 IN WP(C):
---------------------------------------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO CIVIL SUPPLES
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.
4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,
KARTHIKAPPILLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA 688 524.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI V.TEKCHAND
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C):
------------------------------------------------------
1. RAVIDAS,
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O MADHAVAN, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
RAMANCHERRY THARAYIL, ARATTUPUZHA P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
2. SUNEESH,
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O THANKAPPAN, KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE,
THARAYIL KADAVU, VALIYAZHEEKAL P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 535.
W.A. NO.1961 OF 2016
3. VASUDEVAN.C,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O CHANDRANGADAN, ALTGHRAMOOTTIL
HOUSE, VALIYAZHEEKAL P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 535
4. THE DISTRICT MANAGER,
MASTSYAFED, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC,MATSYAFED
R BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
R BY SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.11.2016, THE COURT ON 25.11.2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. NO.1961 OF 2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
THE JOINT VERIFICATION REPORT AND TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE-I.
ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED
BY THE GOVERNMENT AND TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE-II.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, C.J.
&
SATHISH NINAN, J.
===================================
W.A. No.1961 of 2016
===================================
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2016
J U D G M E N T
SATHISH NINAN, J.
Respondents 1 and 3 to 5 in W.P(C) No.9297 of 2016 have filed this Writ Appeal challenging the judgment dated 01.07.2016 in the aforesaid Writ Petition. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the writ petitioners.
2. The subject matter of the Writ Petition relates to issue of kerosene permits for traditional fishermen at subsidised rates through the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. Writ Petitioners are traditional fishermen. They use traditional canoes which are fitted with outboard engines. Kerosene is being supplied to them at subsidised rates. Since there was wide spread allegation of misuse of the system, by using bogus permits, vessels W.A. No.1961 of 2015 -: 2 :- and engines, the State Government passed orders directing a joint verification of fishing canoes and outward engines by the Officers of the Fisheries Department, Matsyafed and Civil Supplies, to be done once in a year. The joint verification is carried out all over the State of Kerala in a single day to avoid bogus permits, duplications and foul-play by the permits holders. According to the writ petitioners, they own and possess vessels and outboard engines which bear due registration marks. It is contended that the joint verification as stated above was held on 08.03.2015 by the authorities. The writ petitioners had made available the vessels and the engines for verification. Though they waited almost for a period of one year for the issuance of the permit, the same was not issued to them. It was only on enquiries thereafter that the writ petitioners came to know that in the report given by the officials concerned, as regards the writ petitioners it was reported that they did not produce their vessels for verification. Writ petitioners allege that it is W.A. No.1961 of 2015 -: 3 :- contrary to the real state of affairs and that their vessels and engines were in fact produced and made available for verification and further that pursuant to the inspection, a token/tag was put on the engine and the vessel. True copy of the token issued evidencing the verification of the engine is produced along with the writ petition.
3. Learned single Judge as per the impugned judgment, relying upon the judgment in W.P(C) No.20234 of 2015, directed the appellants to conduct a fresh verification of the country boats of the petitioners and to renew the kerosene permits if it is found that the writ petitioners own and possess the same.
4. As has been noted earlier, the system of joint verification of the vessels and engines on a single day throughout the State of Kerala was implemented with the object of curbing renewal of bogus permits on submitting the same vessels and outboard engines repeatedly. If verification is held on a single day, the malpractice could be hindered. It is with the said W.A. No.1961 of 2015 -: 4 :- object of preventing misuse of the facility granted by the Government, that such a restriction and system was introduced.
5. According to writ petitioners their vessels and engines were brought for inspection and were verified by the authorities concerned. However, the 2nd respondent, in the Writ Petition, filed a counter affidavit contending that though the writ petitioners had produced their outboard engines, they failed to produce their fishing vessels for verification. Along with the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent has also produced the joint verification report marked as Exhibit R2(a). Serial Nos.35 to 38 and 88 in the said report relate to the writ petitioners. The remarks column thereto indicate that fishing vessels were not produced by the petitioners for verification. Though the writ petitioners contend otherwise regarding the production of fishing vessels, on the face of Ext.R2(a) report prepared by the authorities in the course of their official function, in the absence of any material to W.A. No.1961 of 2015 -: 5 :- prove the contrary, Ext.R2(a) report has to be accepted. No material is produced or made available to come to a conclusion that the remarks noted in Ext.R2(a) regarding non-production of the vessels, is wrong or is a mistake.
6. Learned single Judge relying on the judgment in W.P(C) No.20234 of 2015 has directed respondents 2, 4 and 5 to conduct a fresh verification of the vessels of the writ petitioners and to renew kerosene permits, if it is found that they own and possess the same. As is pointed out earlier, the very exercise of conducting a joint inspection all over the State on a single day is with a particular object, viz., curbing the malpractice of submitting the same vessels and engines repeatedly and thus obtaining bogus permits. If the course as directed by the learned single Judge is adopted, the very purpose intended to be achieved by conducting a single day verification would become fruitless. Hence we find that the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge is liable to be interfered with.
In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. W.A. No.1961 of 2015 -: 6 :- Judgment dated 01.07.2016 in W.P(C) No.9297 of 2016 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. However, we make it clear that it shall be open for the writ petitioners to approach the authorities concerned and submit fresh applications seeking joint verification and kerosene permits for the next year, which shall be considered by them in accordance with law.
Sd/-
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE.
Vsv /true copy/