IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS.No. 515 of 1999(C)
1. T.H.EBRAHIM KAREEM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :05/01/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
————————————-
AS NO.515 OF 1999
————————————-
Dated 15th January 2010
Judgment
The plaintiff, who is a dealer in cement, laid the suit for
compensation against the Government. The Trial Court found
against the plaintiff. In appeal, this Court reversed the judgment
of the Trial Court and passed a decree as follows :
“Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, I find that
the punishment of confiscation imposed by the District Collector was
excessive. But, on the strength of that finding alone, I am not inclined
to grant the entire compensation sought for by the plaintiff. As already
found by me, there has been violation of the provisions of the Cement
Distribution Order and Licence conditions by the plaintiff and it cannot
be said that the storage and seizure were illegal. The mental agony
which the petitioner claims to have suffered and the difference
between the price realised in sale and the actual market price of the
cement at the time of seizure according to me, can be treated as
punishment, enough for the irregularities committed by the plaintiff.
Under these circumstances, I direct the Government to refund the
actual price of the cement realised in the auction. Thus, allowing the
appeal in part, the suit is decreed in part. The appellant plaintiff is
allowed to recover a sum of Rs.15,360/- together with interest at the
rate of 6% from the date of suit till the date of realisation from the
respondents. The 2nd respondent Revenue Inspector will be personally
liable for the amount. The Government’s liability will be vicarious.”
AS NO.515/99 2
2. It appears that the Government had filed RP Nos.348
and 377 of 2007, seeking to have the personal liability against
the second respondent deleted. Those petitions were allowed
and the Government was directed to ascertain whether the
decree amount as per the decree passed by this Court has been
deposited or not.
3. Today, the learned Government Pleader informed this
Court that the decree amount has already been deposited and
so, the second respondent may be exonerated of his personal
liability.
4. In view of the above submission, the personal liability
cast on the second respondent is deleted and he stands
exonerated of his personal liability. It is pointed out that an EP is
pending before the Execution Court. In case, as submitted, the
decree amount has been deposited, the EP shall stand closed.
The Appeal is allowed as above.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
AS NO.515/99 3
`
P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
======================
AS NO.515 OF 1999
=========================
JUDGMENT
DATED 5TH JANUARY 2010
=======================
AS NO.515/99 4