IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 31503 of 2006(A)
1. MUHAMMED HANEEFA,
... Petitioner
2. V.K.PRABHAKARAN,
3. T.VIJAYAN,
Vs
1. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
... Respondent
2. THE PROJECT OFFICER,
3. DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED TRIBE
4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :28/11/2006
O R D E R
K.K. DENESAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 31503 OF 2006 A
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 28th November, 2006
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners belong to the category of Cooks in
the Tribal Development Department. Presently, they are
working in the hostel attached to Model Residential
School, Painavu. Certain serious grievances suffered
by the petitioners were voiced through detailed
representation preferred by them and addressed to the
3rd respondent. Ext. P1 is the copy of that
representation. It was first submitted before the next
higher authority. The 2nd respondent is an
intermediary officer and therefore Ext. P1 was
channelized through him. In the normal course the 2nd
respondent is not expected to dispose of Ext. P1 by
passing an order as he likes because Ext. p1 is
addressed to the 3rd respondent who is the head of the
department and who alone is expected to consider the
grievances highlighted by the petitioners in Ext. P1.
But what transpired was that the 2nd respondent felt
that he is competent to give a reply to the petitioners
and straightaway dealt with the representation as
though it was addressed to him, spoke on the merits of
WPC No. 31503/2006 -2-
the matter applying his subjective thinking on the
issues and then decided that the representation need
not be forwarded to the 3rd respondent. He also stated,
as seen from Ext. P2, that such representations shall
not be received by the 1st respondent-Senior
Superintendent from the petitioners.
2. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been
filed.
3. I have heard the Special Govt. Pleader
appearing for the respondents. Ex facie, the stand
taken by the second respondent appears to be arbitrary,
highhanded and not in accordance with the office
procedure expected to be followed by the officers of
government departments. It was neither proper nor
competent on the part of the 2nd respondent to pass
final orders on Ext. P1 or to direct that hereafter
such kind of representations shall not be received for
onward transmission to the Director of the Department.
Ext. P2 is therefore liable to be set aside. I do so.
There shall be a direction that Ext. P1 shall be
forwarded to the 3rd respondent and if it is so felt,
the 2nd respondent can make his own remarks about the
factual aspects referred to in Ext. P1. However, the
final decision will have to be taken by the 3rd
WPC No. 31503/2006 -3-
respondent who shall do so after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioners since the
grievances highlighted are in connection with the day-
to-day difficulties experienced by the petitioners in
the matter of discharging their duties and other
service conditions. Whether the service conditions
should be improved or not is also a matter for the 3rd
respondent to consider and, if so required, after
getting necessary orders from the 4th respondent-
Government.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 shall therefore forward
Ext. P1 to the 3rd respondent within two weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The 3rd
respondent shall consider the same as directed above
within one month on receipt of a copy of the judgment
and pass appropriate orders. The result of disposal of
Ext. P1 shall be communicated to the petitioners
immediately.
K.K. DENESAN
JUDGE
jan/