Kerala High Court
R.Sankarankutty vs Government Of Kerala on 24 October, 2019
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941
WA.No.479 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 37840/2008 DATED 31-03-2015
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
R.SANKARANKUTTY
ADVOCATE,
REVATHY, SANTHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA - 1.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF LAW,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 001.
2 SUSAN ALEX,
ADVOCATE, SAS BUILDING, ALAPPUZHA - 688 013.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (B/O)
R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANAL KUMAR (B/O)
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.10.2019,
ALONG WITH WA.487/2016, WA.736/2016, WA.744/2016, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.479 of 2016 & - 2 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941
WA.No.487 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 9676/2009 DATED 31-03-2015
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
R.SANKARANKUTTY,
ADVOCATE,
REVATHY, SANANTHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA - 1.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF LAW,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN- 695 001.
2 SUSAN ALEX,
ADVOCATE, SAS BUILDING, ALAPPUZHA - 688 013.
R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R2 BY ADV. SRI .S.SANAL KUMAR (B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.10.2019,
ALONG WITH WA.479/2016, WA.736/2016, WA.744/2016, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.479 of 2016 & - 3 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941
WA.No.736 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 5017/2009 DATED 31.03.2015
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
SUSAN ALEX,
ADVOCATE, SAS BUILDIG, ALAPPUZHA -13.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
SMT.T.J.SEEMA
SMT.SMITHA PHILIPOSE
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVT. OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 695 001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO LAW DEPARTMENT,
GOVT.SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. 695 001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
4 THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
5 MR.R.SANKARANKUTTY, ADVOCATE,
REVATHY, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
R1-R4 BY BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU FOR R-5 B/O
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.10.2019,
ALONG WITH WA.479/2016, WA.487/2016, WA.744/2016, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.479 of 2016 & - 4 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941
WA.No.744 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 5016/2009 DATED 31-03-2015 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
SUSAN ALEX, ADVOCATE,
SAS BUILDING,ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,TRIVANDRUM-6950013.
2 THE SECRETARY TO LAW DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM-695001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE,ALAPPUZHA-688001.
4 THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
ALAPPUZHA-688001.
5 MR.R.SANKARANKUTTY, ADVOCATE,
REVATHY, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688001
R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH(B/O)
R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.10.2019,
ALONG WITH WA.479/2016, WA.487/2016, WA.736/2016, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.479 of 2016 & - 5 -
connected cases.
K.Vinod Chandran & V.G.Arun, JJ.
----------------------------------------
W.A.Nos.479, 487, 736 & 744 of 2016
----------------------------------------
Dated, this the 24th day of October, 2019
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
The four appeals are filed as against the common judgment in four writ petitions. The writ petitioners were the District Government Pleader [for brevity "DGP"] and Additional District Government Pleader [for brevity "ADGP"] in the district of Alappuzha. The writ petitions were filed against the liability fixed on the Government Pleaders for loss caused to the Government in two cases.
2. The first case was a motor accidents claims case, in which a police vehicle was involved in the accident which caused the death of the driver of a scooter. The legal representatives had filed O.P(MV) No.757 of 1992. Admittedly the ADGP, who is one of the writ petitioners, had represented the State in the matter. An award was passed on 26.03.1998. An WA.479 of 2016 & - 6 -
connected cases.
application for certified copy was made on 02.04.1998 and the certified copy was ready on 01.08.1998. The DGP took delivery of the copy on 09.10.1998. However, the Superintendent of Police, who was the 2nd respondent before the MACT, received the copy only on 30.07.1999. The DGP had also opined that there is no scope for an appeal. The liability fixed against the DGP and the ADGP was Rs.29,070/-, which is said to be the interest liability cast on the Government for reason of the delay in deposit of the award amount; which was occasioned only by reason of the delayed communication of the certified copy and the opinion of the DGP.
3. The next liability is of Rs.2,02,555/-, which is the amount enhanced by the Sub Court in a Land Acquisition Reference. The liability was fixed on the DGP and ADGP since in the appeal filed before the High Court, this Court had deprecated the action of the Government Pleader in the reference Court, having not cross-examined the witness, but still having filed an appeal. The appeal stood dismissed by this Court. Hence, the amounts enhanced by the Reference Court was WA.479 of 2016 & - 7 -
connected cases.
mulcted as the liability of the DGP and ADGP; for reason of the refusal to cross-examine the witness, on the ADGP and on the DGP, for reason of not effectively supervising the work.
4. As far as the motor accidents claim case, we sought for instruction as to the date on which the award amounts were disbursed, to know whether there was any delay at the hands of the Government after the award was communicated. We see that the date of disbursement of the amounts to four of the legal heirs occurred on 17.02.2000 itself, while the Superintendent of Police received the certified copy of the award on 30.07.1999. It is only normal that the Government took some time in depositing the amounts before the MACT. We are satisfied that there is no undue delay occurred in the deposit of the amounts after the certified copy was received by the State.
5. We find that there was a delay of one year in communicating the certified copy of the award. The writ petitioners have contentions against each other before us. The DGP refers to the explanation given by WA.479 of 2016 & - 8 -
connected cases.
her before the Law Secretary, Government of Kerala; the appeal against the order of the District Collector, produced as Exhibit P7 in WP(C) No.5016 of 2009 from which W.A.No.744 of 2016 arises. It is specifically pointed out that the DGP has received certified copy of the award on 09.10.1998 and on the same day she has given an opinion and forwarded the same for the endorsement of the ADGP. The opinion is, no scope for appeal. It is the contention of the DGP that it was the responsibility of the ADGP who appeared in the case to give the opinion and only since there was delay on his part, the DGP herself had furnished the opinion. The DGP has also a contention that the liability has been mulcted on the DGP only for reason of overall responsibility of the DGP as provided under Rule 80(2) of the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978; which is impermissible since in conducting the case and giving an opinion on the scope of appeal there could be no interference by the DGP. The ADGP, however, submits that there is a clear admission by the DGP that WA.479 of 2016 & - 9 -
connected cases.
she had taken the files for giving an opinion on the scope to file an appeal. Hence, despite the fact that ADGP had appeared, the liability can only be mulcted on the DGP.
6. We do not think either of the appellants/writ petitioners can absolve themselves from the liability insofar as the delay caused in sending the certified copy of the award after it was ready for delivery by the Tribunal. Despite the fact that the DGP insists that she had taken the responsibility to opine on the scope to file an appeal for reason of the delay caused by the ADGP, there is nothing to show that it is the ADGP who has to give the opinion for reason only of he having conducted the case. There is also no procedure shown to us which requires the opinion given by the DGP to be endorsed by the person who conducted the case. Admittedly the DGP gave an opinion on 09.10.1998, again the date on which the delivery of the award was taken; which was forwarded only on 27.07.1999. It was the bounden duty of the DGP to have communicated the opinion immediately. Despite this, WA.479 of 2016 & - 10 -
connected cases.
we cannot absolve the ADGP also from the liability, since admittedly he had appeared in the case and it was his responsibility to ensure that the delivery of the certified copy was carried out within time and communicated the award to the respondent-State. In such circumstances, we do not think there can be any interference caused to the judgment of the learned Single Judge regarding the liability to interest additionally incurred on the State for reason only of the delay in communication of the certified copy of the award. We direct the appellants to bear the same equally.
7. We are told that both the DGP and ADGP have to receive money from the Government for the work done by them when they were in office. In such circumstances, when making payments, the disbursing authority will ensure that an amount of Rs.14,535/- [Rupees fourteen thousand, five hundred and thirty five] will be deducted from the respective appellants/writ petitioners.
WA.479 of 2016 & - 11 -
connected cases.
8. The next claim is with respect to the
enhancement of compensation granted in a Land
Acquisition Reference. We notice that there was no
cross-examination carried out by the ADGP and the DGP also opined that there is no scope for appeal. True, this Court while dismissing the appeal filed against the said order had made a comment about the failure of the ADGP to cross-examine and the subsequent filing of an appeal; but, however, that does not mean that the liability of the enhanced amounts was solely due to the cross-examination having not been conducted. This Court only deprecated the manner in which an appeal was filed despite a cross-examination of the claimant having not been undertaken in the lower Court. As is well-known, in land acquisition matters one case cannot be decided independently, since always the acquisition would be of larger extents of property involving many claims made before the Reference Court. There would have been reference to the nature, lie and value of the adjacent properties covered by the acquisition for the purpose of deciding the compensation amount. In such WA.479 of 2016 & - 12 -
connected cases.
circumstances, we feel that the liability mulcted on the Government Pleaders for reason of the enhancement granted by the Reference Court cannot be sustained. We do not see any such reference to other claims having been made by the District Collector. In such circumstances, we interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and set aside the liability mulcted on the Government Pleaders - the appellants/writ petitioners - with respect to the land acquisition case.
Resultantly, we allow W.A.Nos.487 and 736 of 2016 and reject W.A.Nos.479 and 744 of 2016. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE vku/-
[ TRUE COPY ]