IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 5437 of 2005(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, SCOPE COMPLEX, NO.5, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, REP. BY THE ZONAL MANAGER, CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NO.437, CHANDRALOK COMPLEX, S.D.ROAD, SECUNDERABAD - 500 003, ANDHRA PRADESH. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASST. COLLECTOR IIND GRADE, NO.9, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (SOUTH), ABDUL HAMID MARG, SAKET, NEW DELHI. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. 3. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1., REP. BY SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,KWA FOR R3 SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA FOR R.3 SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.5437/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE BIFR TO PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R1 TO PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a) : COPY OF TENDER FORM CONTAINING GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT AND SCHEDULE FOR THE SUPPLY OF CEMENT. R1(b) : COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED AND SIGNED IN STAMP PAPER OF VALUE RS.15/-. R1(c) : COPY OF TELEGRAM DATED 04/02/1995. R1(d) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 21/02/1995. R1(e) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 20/03/1995 SENT TO PETITIONER'S CORPORATE OFFICE. R1(f) :COPY OF LETTER DATED 21/09/1995. R1(g) : COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING the LOSS INCURRED BY KWA DUE TO CANCELLATION OF SUPPLY ORDER. R1(h) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 06/04/2002 SENT TO THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF PETITIONER. R1(i) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 27/11/2002. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------- WP(C) No. 5437 of 2005 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 31st day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of loss allegedly caused to Kerala Water Authority. The case of the petitioner is that there is no concluded contract for supply of cement, which allegedly led to loss to the Water Authority. I do not think, there is any need for this Court to adjudicate the dispute between a Government of India Corporation and a statutory authority under the control of Kerala Government for more than one reason. In the first place, petitioner is a sick industrial undertaking and consequently recovery is blocked by virtue of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. Besides this, petitioner being a Government of India undertaking, 3rd respondent, which is again a State Government agency, can take up the matter before the Ministry concerned. If there is any genuine claim, the concerned Ministry should redress the grievance of the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is, accordingly disposed of directing 3rd respondent to forward a request containing all the details of their claim to the Secretary to the concerned Department, Government WP(C) No.5437/2005 -2- of India under which petitioner functions. There will be direction to the Secretary concerned to consider the matter in detail and approve the claim of the 3rd respondent to the extent of the loss caused by petitioner to 3rd respondent. This will arise only if petitioner is in a position to clear the liability, which will happen after the BIFR proceedings are over. Revenue recovery proceedings will stand quashed for the 3rd respondent to make the claim before the Government. Petitioner will make payment in terms of directions to be issued by the Secretary, Government of India as above. Similarly, the Secretary to Government should responsibly handle the matter and answer the request made by 3rd respondent through a speaking order which if required can be challenged by third respondent or petitioner in this Court. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg