Kerala High Court
Raveendran vs The State Of Kerala
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/21ST PHALGUNA 1934
WP(C).No. 28318 of 2012 (L)
----------------------------
PETITIONERS:
------------
1. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.APPUKUTTY,
KUTTANPARAN VEEDU, VADANAPPILLY BEACH
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. SATHEESAN, S/O.VASU, INNARAN HOUSE,
VADANAPPILLY BEACH.P.O, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, THRISSUR,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
THRISSUR. 680 001.
3. THE PROJECT OFFICER
MATSYAFED, THRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR 680 001.
4. THE REGIONAL HEAD, SUPPLYCO OFFICE, THRISSUR. 680 001.
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 001.
R1,R2,R4,R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.ABDUL SALEEM
R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12-03-2013, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.31663/2012 & WP(C) NO.1074/2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
VK
WP(C).No. 28318 of 2012 (L)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
---------
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXT.P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION AS FAR AS THE
FIRST PETITIONER IS CONCERNED DATED 4.2.98.
EXT.P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE KEROSENE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE FIRST
PETITIONER DATED 31.5.09.
EXT.P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE PUNCHING CARD ISSUED DATED NIL.
EXT.P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF THE FIRST
PETITIONER DATED 18.7.98.
EXT.P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE SECOND
PETITIONER DATED 30.6.06.
EXT.P6- A TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT FOR KEROSENE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR DATED 31.5.09.
EXT.P7- A TRUE COPY OF THE PUNCHING CARD OF THE SECOND PETITIONER DATED
NIL.
EXT.P8- A TRUE COPY OF THE FISHERMEN PASS BOOK CONCERNING THE KERALA
FISHERMEN WELFARE BOARD, THRISSUR.
EXT.P9- A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IN THE NEW FORMAT
CONCERNING THE DIFFERENT PERSON ISSUED DATED 30.9.08.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
---------------------
/ TRUE COPY /
P.A. TO JUDGE
VK
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C). Nos. 28318/12, 31663/12
& 1074 of 2013
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2013
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the concerned respondents.
2. On going through the pleadings and proceedings in these cases, it is seen that the basic issue projected by the petitioners is in respect of the alleged eligibility to have Kerosene at a subsidised rate. Various averments and allegations have been raised in the writ petitions, as to the manner in which 'joint inspection' was conducted by the concerned respondents and as to the course and events.
3. When W.P.(C).No. 28318 of 2012 came up before another learned Judge of this Court on 28.11.2012, an interim order was passed in the following terms:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The petitioners point out that the joint verification has not been conducted so W.P.C. Nos.28318/12 & 2 conn.cases -2- far. It is also submitted that the same has to be conducted prior to 30.11.2012.
It will be open to the respondents 2 to 4 to conduct a joint inspection so as to complete it before 30.11.2012. They will ensure that there will not be any disruption in supply of kerosene to the petitioners at subsidized rates. The petitioners will produce a copy of the order for compliance."
Subsequently, with reference to the said interim order, when the matter was projected in W.P.(C).No. 1074/2013 similar order was passed in the said case as well, whereby the respondents were directed to ensure that there will not be any disruption in the supply of Kerosene at the subsidised rate. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and the learned Government Pleader submit that, the application preferred by the petitioners in W.P.(C).No. 28318 of 2012 was considered and rejected, as the material particulars furnished in the application did not reconcile with the actual facts and figures revealed when the boats/engines were subjected to physical verification in the course of the proceedings held on 18.11.2012.
4. In W.P.(C).No. 1074 of 2013, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent pointing out that a joint W.P.C. Nos.28318/12 & 2 conn.cases -3- verification was conducted on 18.11.2012 between 8 am and 5 pm. It was given vide publicity and about 910 'Fishing Crafts' with engines were produced for verification. On detailed examination of each and every engine, it was revealed that the engines produced by the petitioners therein, on which the fishing vessels were being operated were not fit enough to undertake any operation in fishing and that, all such vessels were not seaworthy. The said counter affidavit is dated 30.1.2013 and the averments raised by the respondents therein have not been chosen to be rebutted by the petitioners by filing any reply affidavit.
5. Coming to the facts and proceedings as narrated in W.P. (C).No. 31663 of 2012, almost similar contentions have been raised by the petitioners herein as well. The concerned respondents, the Departmental authorities and the 'Matsyafed' have filed separate counter affidavits referring to the sequence of events. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is pointed out that, the misuse of Kerosene supplied at subsidy rate was to an alarming extent, which came to the notice of the Government and the 'Matsyafed' and it was accordingly, that a decision was taken to have 'joint verification' with all the parties W.P.C. Nos.28318/12 & 2 conn.cases -4- concerned including the Civil Supplies Department, the Department of Fisheries, Matsyafed etc., apart from the presence of the representatives of various Unions. It was something like a statutory process and wide publicity was given in this regard. The Kerosene subsidy available as on date is upto an extent of 128 liters per month for 9.9 HP engines and 179 liters per month for 25 HP engines.
6. Copy of the order issued by the 2nd respondent to conduct the State wide joint verification on 18.11.2012, has been produced as Ext.R4(a). In respect of the proceedings held in Alappuzha District, nearly 33 coastal centers were announced and inspection was conducted between 8 am and 5 pm with the assistance of 130 officers posted in the said centers, as revealed from Exts.R4(b) and R4(c) proceedings. A separate control room was opened in the Fisheries Directorate at Thiruvananthapuram, as discernible from Ext.R4(d) and after joint verification, the eligible persons were given permits while the undeserving elements were weeded out.
7. In the case of petitioners in W.P.(C).No. 31663 of 2012, it was found that, the vessels were not available for inspection, after registering the same in the morning at the specific center. W.P.C. Nos.28318/12 & 2 conn.cases -5- Admittedly, the parties had taken out the vessels for fishing which was specifically prohibited, as such a course would defeat the very purpose of joint verification. In Alappuzha District, about 3,233 Outboard Engines and Vessels were verified as per Rules and 483 applications were rejected, as borne by the proceedings of District Supply Officer, Alappuzha produced as Ext.R4(h). Some of the owners of the Vessels did not produce the outboard Engines/Vessels on time, as borne by R4(i). The petitioners' Vessels were to be produced at the Thrikkunnapuzha Center, where 162 numbers had already been registered and tokens were given; out of which only 124 persons produced the Vessels/Engines, while 38 owners did not produce the same. The petitioners in the said writ petition standing at Sl.Nos. 10, 12 and 36 were not available for verification as borne by Ext.R4(i) and hence are not eligible to get Kerosene permit as per Rules. It is also discernible from various documents made available, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent and also that of the 5th respondent that the Vessels, after registration were not available through out the course of joint verification.
8. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the joint verification exercise ordered by the concerned respondents W.P.C. Nos.28318/12 & 2 conn.cases -6- was not effectively made use of by the petitioners, who on the other hand, acted in contravention of the norms/requirements/specifications as to the manner in which the joint verification has to be conducted and concluded. This being the position, the contention of the petitioners that, they are entitled to have the requisite extent of Kerosene at 'subsidised rate' does not appear to be palatable to this Court. This Court finds that, there is absolutely no lapse or fault on the part of the respondents in any manner and the alleged cause of action projected in the writ petition does not require any intervention by this Court.
Writ petitions fail and all these writ petitions are dismissed accordingly.
It is made clear that the petitioners in W.P(C).No.31663 of 2012 are at liberty to pursue Ext.P5, which is stated as pending consideration before the first respondent/Government.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Kp/-