IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 37449 of 2003(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.M.JALAL, KANNANCHACKASSERIL HOUSE, ALAMTHURUTH, VADAKKEKARA P.O, NORTH PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MOHAMED HASHIM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION), IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MECHANICAL IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MECHANICAL DIVISION, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, ALAPUZHA. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DREDGER SUB DIVISION (WRD), CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.37449/03 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDIDNGS DT 18.5.95 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALLOTTING DREDGER TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT 26.5.95 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DT 15.5.2000 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT 5.1.2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPODNENT TO THE THEN ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 19.12.2001 OF THE 1ST RESPODENT IMPOSING LIABILITY UPON THE PETITIONES. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE DATED 30.7.2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DT 18.9.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 18.10.2003 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37449 OF 2003 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P8. Ext.P5 is the Government Order that was issued in connection with the sinking of a dredger D7 at Gothuruthy. According to the Government, on account of the sinking of the dredger, loss of `13,41,727/- was caused to the Government and that the liability has been apportioned in the manner as indicated in Ext.P5. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he had hired the dredger and the liability of `4,02,518/- is ordered to be recovered from him by initiating steps including judicial proceedings. Subsequently, Ext.P8 notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to remit the amount within 30 days and informing that on failure, Department will be constrained to initiate judicial proceedings against him. It is these orders, which are under challenge. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it was already found in Ext.P3 enquiry report that the dredger in question was operated by the employees of the respondents themselves, and that, it was on account of the poor condition of the dredger and WPC No. 37449/03 :2 : negligent operation of the dredger that the incident in question took place. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the petitioner could not be made liable for the amount mentioned in Exts.P5 and P8. It is stated that, despite the petitioner having explained the position in Ext.P7, Ext.P8 was issued and therefore the writ petition is filed. 3. In my view, petitioner has no cause of action at all. It is true that in Exts.P5 and P8, it has been found that the petitioner is liable to pay `4,02,518/- towards his share of the loss. However, the respondents themselves have only said that in the event the petitioner does not pay the amount, they will initiate judicial proceedings, which means that, the respondents will be approaching the Civil Court for recovery of the said amount. If the respondents file such suit, it is up to the petitioner to contest the suit and prove his case that it was not on account of his fault that the accident in question has happened, and therefore, he is not liable. Therefore, the challenge at this stage against Exts.P5 and P8 is premature and, for that reason, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge