IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 527 of 2006()
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE DIRECTOR , SCHEDULE TRIBE
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
Vs
1. K.R. ANILKUMAR, POLICE DRIVER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :04/06/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 527 OF 2006
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The respondents in the Original Petition are the appellants. The
respondent herein approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 order of the
Government dated 29.7.1997. The said order was passed, based on the
proceedings of the scrutiny committee dated 30.11.1996 which in turn was
based on the enquiry report of the Vigilance Officer, KIRTADS, Ext.R1
(a). The learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P5 on the ground that the
respondent/petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard before
final orders were passed. The Government was given an opportunity to
proceed afresh in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved by the said
judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to the
W.A. NO. 527/2006 2
nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also the ground
taken for the same, we feel that interference with the said judgment is not
warranted in this appeal. The order has been quashed only on the ground
of violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Special
Government Pleader who appeared for the appellants submitted that once
it is found that the petitioner had procured false caste certificate, notice
need not be issued for taking consequential action. The said contention
cannot be accepted on the facts of this case. In Ext.P5, several actions are
taken against the respondent, including the direction to recover the
monetary benefits received by him. Further, there is a direction to
prosecute the respondent/petitioner. If the proposal for prosecution is
under the provisions of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 (Act 11
of 1996), it may not be permissible to prosecute the petitioner, as the caste
certificate was obtained by the petitioner before the enforcement of the
said Act. These are contentions which the respondent/petitioner would
have urged, if he had been heard.
3. In view of the above position, we order that Ext.P5 shall be
treated as a notice. The proceedings of Scrutiny Committee and report of
KIRTADS are part of the pleadings. The respondent/petitioner may file
W.A. NO. 527/2006 3
his objections to Ext.P5 within two months from today. The Government
may, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, pass final
orders in the matter within three months thereafter.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
JUDGE
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
JUDGE
sp/
W.A. NO. 527/2006 4
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
W.A NO. 527/2006
JUDGMENT
4th June, 2009
W.A. NO. 527/2006 5