Kerala High Court
Abdul Ansari V.M vs The Kerala State Civil Supplies ... on 14 January, 2020
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 24TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.34619 OF 2019(B)
PETITIONER :-
ABDUL ANSARI V.M.,
VADAKKAYIL HOUSE, MANARCADU.P.O,
KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI
RESPONDENTS :-
1 THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.,
GANDHINAGAR KOCHI - 20,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 THE MANAGER (N.F.S.A),
THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION
LIMITED, P.B.NUMBER 2030 MAVELI BHAVAN,
MAVELI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI - 682 020.
3 THE DEPOT MANAGER SUPPLYCO,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT DEPOT,
VADAVATHOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 010.
4 THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION,
MAVELI TOWER, THIRUNAKKARA,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 010.
BY SMT.MOLLY JACOB, SC, SUPPLYCO
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.34619 OF 2019(B)
-: 2 :-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of January 2020 This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8 order of the 1 st respondent cancelling the agreement executed in favour of the petitioner, forfeiting the security amount and interdicting the payment of transportation bills payable to the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted contract for transportation of rice from the FCI godowns to the depots of the respondents. It is stated that by Ext.P2, a show cause notice was issued alleging that a lorry load of rice lifted from a rice mill by the petitioner on 26.10.2019 for being unloaded in the NFSA depot at Oravakkal was illegally diverted by the petitioner to one St.Mary's Rice Mill at Nellad, causing a loss of Rs.4,50,000/- to the Corporation. He was required to show cause why action shall not be initiated against him. It is contended that Ext.P3 reply was submitted by the petitioner and seven days time was sought for submitting a reply. The petitioner had produced a receipt dated 28.10.2019 to show that the rice had been duly unloaded in the NFSA depot. It is WP(C).No.34619 OF 2019(B) -: 3 :- stated that Exts.P4 to P6 produced by the petitioner would show that the rice had actually been reached the godown. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply. However, without considering the same, Ext.P8 proceedings were issued on 13.12.2019. The petitioner submits that the copy of the report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, which was relied on in Ext.P8 was also not served on the petitioner and that the contentions raised by the petitioner were not considered in the proper perspective.
4. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 1 st respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner had entered into Ext.R1(a) agreement for transportation of rice and that he is bound by the terms of the agreement. It is stated that the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.KL-5G-1920 was dispatched at 11.21 a.m. on 26.10.2019 from the K.E.Agro Mills and the same was diverted to the St.Mary's Rice Mill at Nellad, Muvattupuzha. It is stated that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kottayam Unit had collected the phone call records of the driver of the said vehicle and on scrutiny, it was detected that the vehicle with the load was moving towards Nellad, Muvattupuzha. It is stated that on checking the vehicle movement register of the KINFRA Park, Nellad, it was found that on 26.10.2019 at 14.10 Hrs., the vehicle had gone inside the KINFRA Park and came out at 15.00 Hrs. on WP(C).No.34619 OF 2019(B) -: 4 :- the same date. It is stated that the lorry was also weighed on the Weigh Bridge at the St.Mary's Rice Mill at KINFRA Park at 14.13 Hrs. on the same day. It is stated that no proper reply was submitted by the petitioner and he had sought for only time to make the reply. It is stated that it was only after Ext.P8 order of cancellation of contract had been issued that Ext.P7 reply dated 13.12.2019 was received in the office of the 1 st respondent on 16.12.2019. It is submitted that the contentions raised that the cancellation of the contract is for making alternate temporary arrangement is also not sustainable and that there is no factual basis for the said contention.
5. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. Ext.P2 notice refers to a report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent also refers to such a report, which appears to be the reason for the termination of the contract of the petitioner. However, a reading of Ext.P8 would show that the materials, which had been relied on against the petitioner have not been brought to the notice of the petitioner and no copy of the Vigilance Report, which is relied on had been served on the petitioner. Ext.P8 also is devoid of the details as have been stated in the counter affidavit. WP(C).No.34619 OF 2019(B) -: 5 :-
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of this Court in Prakash v. State of Kerala [2002 (2) KLT 580] to contend that the materials which are relied on are liable to be put to the petitioner and in the absence of serving a copy of the materials relied on, the opportunity to show cause would be an empty formality.
7. Having considered the contentions advanced, I find that the Vigilance Enquiry Report forms the basis for the action initiated against the petitioner. The impugned order also refers to the said report to reach a conclusion that the petitioner had violated the conditions of the contract entered into by him. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have been put on notice of the materials available against him and serve a copy of the report, which has been relied on to cancel the contract granted to him.
In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the respondents to reconsider the issue after hearing the petitioner afresh and after serving a copy of the materials, which are relied on as against the petitioner. The petitioner shall be issued with a fresh notice with a copy of the Vigilance Enquiry Report, which is relied on in Ext.P2 as well as Ext.P8. Orders shall be passed as directed above, after affording the petitioner a further WP(C).No.34619 OF 2019(B) -: 6 :- opportunity of being heard, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case any amounts are found due to the petitioner, after the conduct of the hearing as directed above, the same shall also be disbursed to the petitioner without further delay.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/16.1.2020 WP(C).No.34619 OF 2019(B) -: 7 :- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 3.1.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 4TH OF DECEMBER 2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS RECEIPT SHEET DATED 28/10/2019 FROM THE CIVIL SUPPLIES AUTHORITIES. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE QUALITY MAINTENANCE REGISTER DATED 28TH OF OCTOBER 2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS RECEIPT SHEET EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER PROMPTLY FORWARDED HIS REPLY BY REGISTERED POST ON 13.12.2019. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13/12/2019.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 31/8/2018 INVITING E TENDER.
EXHIBIT R1(b) PHOTO COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DT.16/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPOT MANAGER KOTTAYAM INVITING TENDER FOR AWARDING TEMPORARY TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE