IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 AS.No. 515 of 1999(C) --------------------- OS.526/1990 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT: -------------- T.H.IBRAHIM KAREEM, MANAGING PARTNER T H EBRAHIM KAREEM AND COMPANY MG ROAD, WEST FRONT, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. K U. JOSE, TOWN FIRKA REVENUE INSPECTOR THRISSUR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.N K THANKACHAN THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY0 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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