Ibrahimkutty E.P. vs State Of Kerala

Devan Ramachandran, J

The petitioner says that he was awarded with a contract to cut and remove 296 trees from the Thalassery â€" Valavupara Road Puramboke by the

2nd respondent â€" Executive Engineer, PWD, KSTP Division and that he completed the work satisfactorily pursuant thereto. He says that, however,

subsequently, an allegation was made against him that he had, during the afore work, cut and removed 14 Teakwood trees standing in the Revenue

lands and was imposed with a penalty of over Rupees six lakhs through Ext.P7, which was challenged by him in WP(C) NO.21636/2018, culminating

in Ext.P9 judgment.

The petitioner submits that, as is evident from Ext.P9 judgment, this Court found that he had not been heard while the penalty has been imposed

against him; and thus the competent Authority was directed to conduct a proper enquiry, before finalising the liability against him.

Sri.Georgekutty Mathew â€" learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that, inspite of the specific directions in Ext.P9 judgment, the 4th

respondent â€" Tahsildar has now issued Ext.P10 merely reiterating what has been stated in Ext.P8 and consequently prayed that it be set aside. He

contended that Ext.P10 is egregiously improper because no enquiry had been conducted by the Tahsildar, but that he has solely gone through the

statements made by the KSTP, to hold that his client is responsible for cutting and removing 8 of the Teakwood trees aforementioned, while admitting

that 6 of them were cut and auctioned by the KSTP themselves without sanction from the Revenue Department. He predicated that, therefore, it is

evident that Ext.P10 cannot obtain favour in law and pleaded that this writ petition be allowed.

In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader â€" Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan, submitted that Ext.P10 is an appealable order and that the

petitioner, therefore, cannot maintain this writ petition. Thereafter, on the merits of the matter, he submitted that Ext.P10 perspicuously states the

reasons why the Tahsildar has found against the petitioner and that since it is a speaking order, it is upto him to assail it appropriately as per law.

When I evaluate the afore rival submissions, it is without doubt that, normally, this Court would not intervene with the merits of Ext.P10, since it is

an appealable order. However, what is relevant in Ext.P10 is that it has proceeded on the assumption that petitioner is guilty of cutting and removing 8

Teakwood trees, without making an enquiry whether said trees were part of the 296 trees mentioned by the KSTP in the contract. This enquiry is vital

because, had the petitioner removed the trees as instructed by the KSTP, then the liability would perhaps not be on him, but on the said entity. This is

also pertinent because, as is manifest from Ext.P10, the Tahsildar has found that among the 14 Teak trees, 6 were in fact cut and auctioned by the

KSTP themselves.

I am, therefore, of the firm view that the matter will require to be reconsidered, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner,

leading to a proper enquiry being conducted as to whether the Teak trees alleged to have been cut and removed by him were authorised to be done by

the KSTP in the contract in question.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P10; with a consequential direction to the 4th respondent to reconsider the

matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as also to the competent Officials of the KSTP; thus culminating in an

appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

I make it clear that I have not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions and that the observations in this judgment are only intended for

this Court to arrive at the decision as above, and for no other.

Needless to say, the 4th respondent will be at liberty to consider every vital and germane aspect in its proper perspective, but after verifying whether

the trees in question were part of the contract entered into by the petitioner with the KSTP.

In order to obtain an expeditious compliance of the afore directions, I direct the petitioner and the competent Authority of the KSTP to mark

appearance in the office of the 4th respondent â€" Tahsildar at 11 A.M. on 03.02.2022; on which day, said Authority will either hear them or fix

another convenient date for such purpose and complete the proceedings within the time frame above.