IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6102 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ADAM YUSUF, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, SIG III, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KUNHABDULLA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE CITY. 4. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NORTH, KOZHIKODE CITY. 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU- R1 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 6102 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Deputy Superintendent of Police CBCID, SIG III, Kozhikode. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P15 order dated 28.1.2010 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,61,413/- towards penal rent on the ground that he had unauthorisedly occupied Government Quarter No.A4 with effect from 1.4.1993 to 31.12.2009. According to the respondents, the said Government Quarter was allotted to the petitioner for the period from 31.10.1990 to 10.3.1993 while he was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Kozhikode city and he was bound to vacate the same before 10.3.1993. The petitioner seeks to justify his continued occupation of the said quarters relying on sub-rule(c) of Rule 5 of the Kerala Police (Family) Quarters Allotment and Occupation Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”. He also relies on Rules 22, 30 and 31 of the said Rules. Raising the above grounds, the petitioner has approached the second respondent through Ext.P16, which according to him should be construed as an appeal W.P.(C)NO. 6102/2010 2 against Ext.P15. According to the petitioner, Rule 31 of the aforesaid Rules provides for filing an appeal against orders like Ext.P15. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that his continued occupation of Quarter No.A4 allotted to him earlier cannot be construed as unauthorised occupation in the light of Exts.P2(a) and P4(a). These are matters which require consideration by the second respondent. If it is found that the petitioner has occupied the quarters with permission, as claimed by him, the contention that there is no ground to impose penal rent cannot be said to be without any substance. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P16 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till a decision is taken thereon, no recovery pursuant to Ext.P15 shall be effected. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C)NO. 6102/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 6102/2010 JUDGMENT 24th February, 2010