IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36582 of 2005(E) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SOUNDARAM TRANSPORTS, TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS, 9, HARVEY NAGAR, ARESARADI, MADURAI-625016, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR M.SUBRAMONIAM. BY ADV. MR.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER(PURCHASE) KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20. 3. THE MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, SHANMUGHAM ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. BY ADVS. MR.JOY GEORGE, SC, SUPPLYCO FOR R1 & 2 SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO FOR R1,2 MR.S.EASWARAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 36634 OF 2005 WPC NO. 36594 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C).Nos. 36582, 36594 & 36634 of 2005 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T As the issue raised is identical and considering the similarity of the subject matter, these writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in these three writ petitions were engaged in the business of transporting goods and they are registered contractors with the first respondent. On the basis of the tender invited by the first respondent, the petitioners submitted quotations, quoting the rate for transportation of sugar from various sugar mills from outside the State. As the rates quoted by the petitioners were acceptable to the first respondent, the contracts were confirmed in favour of them and they had executed the work for the period from 2002 to August 2005. It is also the case of the petitioners that on production of Goods Received Sheets (GRS) and bills, 80% of the contract amount was paid to WP(C) Nos.36582, 36594 & 36634 of 2005 :-2-: them. According to the petitioners, amounts of Rs.36,28,638/-, Rs.26,85,662.25 and Rs.20,19,849/- are due to the respective petitioners in the above three writ petitions towards the balance amount as per the contract. That being the position, according to the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 initiated proceedings against them alleging that the rates quoted by the petitioners were on the higher side and that the petitioners formed a cartel along with other contractors claiming higher rate and thus, the respondents initiated proceedings to recover the alleged excess payment. At this juncture, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the above writ petitions. 3. In W.P(C) Nos.36582 and 36634 of 2005, the main prayer is to quash Exts.P42 and P37 proceedings, by issuing a writ of certiorari and further, they pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to disburse the balance amounts due to them as per the contract and the works undertaken and executed by them. Whereas in W.P(C) No.36594 of 2005, the main prayer is WP(C) Nos.36582, 36594 & 36634 of 2005 :-3-: to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to disburse the balance amount due to him towards execution of the works contract undertaken by him. No proceedings were served on him, at the time of filing the writ petitions, as similar to the proceedings produced in the other two writ petitions. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the above three cases and also Smt.Molly Jacob, Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 (Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited). 5. Going by the averments contained in the writ petitions and also the materials produced therein, it appears that the allegation against the petitioners on the basis of which the balance amounts were retained and proceedings initiated, is that the Proprietors of the petitioners' concern entered into conspiracy with unknown public servants of the first respondent during the period 2000-2005, to cheat the Corporation by charging higher transportation rates, higher than All India WP(C) Nos.36582, 36594 & 36634 of 2005 :-4-: Truck Rates, for bringing subsidized sugar from Sugar Mills located in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka to the godown of the first respondent-Corporation in Kerala. So, the sum and substance of the allegation is that by quoting higher amount, that too in pursuance of a conspiracy, the petitioners availed undue pecuniary advantage and gained excess amount from the Corporation. It is, on the basis of the said allegation, the balance amounts were retained and proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, which persuaded the petitioners to approach this Court by preferring these writ petitions. 6. When the matter is taken up today for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the same set of allegations, at the instance of respondents 1 and 2, Crime No.1188 of 2006 was registered in the Central Police Station, Ernakulam for the offences punishable under Sections 406,420 and 34 I.P.C., which was subsequently entrusted with the C.B.I. for its investigation and the cases are registered in C.B.I. as R.C.No.25(A)/2007. Learned WP(C) Nos.36582, 36594 & 36634 of 2005 :-5-: counsel made available to me a copy of the final report filed by the C.B.I. before the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases-II, Ernakulam and also the order passed by the said Court in R.C.25(A)/2007-CBI/KER. The C.B.I., after conducting an elaborate investigation in the above case, filed a final report referring the case. 7. For the purpose of disposing of this writ petition, it appears to me that this Court need not go into the refer report filed by the C.B.I. However, on the basis of the order dated 26.12.2008 in R.C.25(A)/2007-CBI/KER, the above court has accepted the refer report filed by the C.B.I. stating that on a perusal of the reasons stated in the refer report, they relate to the actual facts of investigation and accordingly, the refer report was accepted. If that be so, I am of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the C.B.I., who undertook the investigation, that no offence is disclosed against the petitioners, is a matter to be considered by respondents 1 and 2 and a decision is to be taken by them, as to whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners should be continued or not. WP(C) Nos.36582, 36594 & 36634 of 2005 :-6-: 8. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that in any of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, there was no reference to the C.B.I. investigation. However, while these writ petitions were pending consideration before this Court, the investigation was completed and final report was filed. If that be so, the said fact is relevant to be considered by respondents 1 and 2 while taking further steps in the matter. 9. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that without going into the merits or demerits of the case of the petitioners, these writ petitions can be disposed of directing the petitioners to approach the first respondent by filing a detailed representation setting forth their claims and grievances, especially in the light of the refer report filed by the C.B.I., after investigation into the allegations, contained in that crime, which are identical for initiating proceedings against the petitioners. In the result, these writ petitions are disposed WP(C) Nos.36582, 36594 & 36634 of 2005 :-7-: of relegating the petitioners to approach the first respondent by filing a representation setting forth all the claims and contentions and the fact regarding the refer report filed by the C.B.I. in the above matter, within one month from today along with a copy of this judgment and on receipt of such representation, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the same within six weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Needless to say that the first respondent will disburse the amount due to the petitioners without delay, if it is found that no further action is necessary in the matter, in the light of the refer report filed by the C.B.I. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ WP(C) Nos.36582, 36594 & 36634 of 2005 :-8-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P(C).Nos. 36582, 36594 & 36634 of 2005 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T WP(C) Nos.36582, 36594 & 36634 of 2005 :-9-: DATED: 24-7-2009 WP(C) Nos.36582, 36594 & 36634 of 2005 :-10-: