IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32229 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- 1. SATHYASHEELAN T.A., THRIPRAYAT HOUSE, P.O.NATTIKA BEACH, THRISSUR. 2. SIVAKUMAR K.S., KANHANAMKULAM HOUSE, CHENTHRAPINNI P.O., THRISSUR. 3. AJAY S.ANAMIKA, P.O.PERINGANDOOR, M.G.KAVU, THRISSUR. 4. SHAJU T.S., THEKKEPPURATH HOUSE, P.O.ELAVALLY NORTH, THRISSUR. 5. SUVEGA V.V., WARRIATH HOUSE, P.O.CHEVVOOR, THRISSUR. 6. SMT. LIJI HARIDAS, THIYYADI HOUSE, P.O.PULLAZHY, MILLENIUM NAGAR, OLARIKKARA, THRISSUR-600 012. 7. SMT. P.K.ANITHA, PANDIYALAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KELLETTUMKARA-680 683, NEAR ESTATE, THRISSUR. 8. SMT. NISHA T.S., THEKEPPURATH HOUSE, P.O.ELAVALLY NORTH, THRISSUR-680 511. 9. SMT. SAJITHA A., CHERIKKATTIL, KANNAMKULANGARA, KOORKANCHERRY, P.O.THRISSUR-680 007. 10. AMBIKA M.R., W/O. SHANMUGHAN, MULLAKKAL HOUSE, VARADIUM, AVANOOR P.O., PIN-680 547. 11. P.K.SAJEEV, LAKSHMI NIVAS, POOTHOLE, MADANLI LANE, THRISSUR-4. 12. RATHEESH C.M., CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, APPOLLO STREET, THRISSUR-6. BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE W.P.(C)No. 32229/07 RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE SCHEDULED CASTE - TRIBE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 2. THE DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R1 &2 SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.T. RAVI KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No. 32229/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBTS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D2 6720/04 DATED 1.11.2004. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE PHTOSTAT COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 10.12.2004. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE PHTOSTAT COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN 'MATHRUBHUMI' DAILY DATED 14.12.2004. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PRESCRIBED FORM FOR MAKING THE APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE PHTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CALL LETTER DATED 19.5.2005 ISSUED TO ONE AMONG THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE PHTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.6.2005. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G5.27626/04 DATED 19.7.2005 RECEIVED BY ONE AMONG THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE PHTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.8.2005. EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE PHTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION. EXHIBT P10 : TRUE PHTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D2-6720/40 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 5.4.2006. EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE PHTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.8.2006. EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE PHTOSTAT COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE WAS PUBLISHED IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY ON 8.10.2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1(a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES HELD ON 17.09.2007. EXHIBIT R1(b) : A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 28.09.2007. EXHIBIT R1(c) : A TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS NOTIFICATION. EXHIBIT R1(d) : A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD MEETING HELD ON 25.10.2007. EXHIBIT R1(e) : A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. GO(Rt)No. 204/2003/SCSTDD DATED 27.03.2003. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm S. SIRI JAGAN,J ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 32229 OF 2007 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The dispute in this Writ Petition is in relation to two sets of persons belonging to schedule caste communities selected for the purpose of lease shop rooms in the building constructed by the Kerala State Films Development Corporation at Thrissur selected separately pursuant to two separate notifications issued for the purpose. Originally the petitioners were selected after the interview pursuant to a notification published in the news paper inviting applications dated 10.12.2004. Subsequently, it appears that these shop rooms were handed over to the 1st respondent who conducted a fresh selection and selected a fresh list of persons excluding the petitioners pursuant to a notification dated 8.10.2007. This fresh selection was challenged by the petitioners on the ground that after having selected them pursuant to a transparent selection procedure conducted by the appropriate authorities, it is totally arbitrary on the part of the respondents to conduct a fresh selection excluding the petitioners. W.P.(C)No. 32229/07 2 2. The contention raised by the 1st respondent is that the first selection itself was not in accordance with Ext. R1(e) Government Order, by which only the allotment itself had been sanctioned. According to them only those persons sponsored by either the Kudumbasree or the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development Corporation could have been considered for selection. The contention is that neither the Kudumbasree nor the the 1st respondent had sponsored the petitioners at any time. Therefore according to them the fresh selection made is the correct selection. They would further submit that while conducting the fresh selection, persons like the petitioners who had participated in the earlier selection were also directed to apply and the petitioners did not apply pursuant thereto. The contention is that therefore the petitioners cannot be considered for allotment of the shop rooms now. 3. I have considered the contentions of the parties in detail. In Ext. R1(e), which is the basic Government Order permitting such allotment of shop rooms on lease it is stated thus: “The shop will be leased out to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe persons having ample W.P.(C)No. 32229/07 3 entrepreneurial skill for any business in the shop rooms and sponsored by Kudumbasree or Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Corporation. The department will see that band dealt (sic) and 'Pakadi' are avoided.” (emphasis supplied) Petitioners have no case that they have been so sponsored by the Kudumbasree or the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development Corporation. At the same time, it is not clear as to whether the sponsoring should be before or after selection. 4. Even assuming that the selection of the petitioners was not in accordance with Ext. R1(e), it remains a fact that the eligibility of the petitioners to apply for the first selection was not properly published. The petitioners were never aware of the requirement of applying again. Although in Ext. R1(e) press release issued it is stated so, the same included in the actual publication in the papers the same is not included. 4. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that both selections have not been properly conducted. Therefore it is only just and proper that a fresh selection from among both the petitioners and the persons who have been selected now be made. W.P.(C)No. 32229/07 4 Accordingly the 1st respondent shall, by committee constituted as per Clause 5 of R1(b), conduct a fresh interview of the petitioners and the persons who have been selected by the 1st respondent and from all of them select the persons eligible for such allotment of shop rooms, in accordance with the orders on the subject. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE vkm