IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 23425 of 2007(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.,(RUBBERMARK), GANDHINAGAR, KADAVANTHARA P.O., KANAYANNOOR TALUK IN ERNAKULAM DIST. 682020. REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.K.THULASEEDHARAN NAIR. BY ADV. MR.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTD BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVT. OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.23425/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.587/99 AGRI. DTD. 3.4.99. P2:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT) NO. 1556/99/AGRI. DTD. 1.10.99. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RPI/99/2008/8154 DTD. 29.4.99 SENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF KERALA. P4:- COPY OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA NOTIFICATION DTD. 12.9.01. P5:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORER GO(MS) NO.219/01/AD. DTD. 20.10.06. P6:-COP GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.256/01/AD. DTD. 26.11.01. P7:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS) NO.263/01/AD DTD. 5.12.01. P8:- COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR VERIFICATION OF CLAIMS ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE i/c. P9:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TM(2) /18510/04 DTD. 3.2.06. P10:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) 31/02/AD. DTD. 18.2.02. P11:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) 38/07 DTD. 20.3.02. P12:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) 39/02/AD. DTD. 20.3.02. P13:- COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE UNDER SECRETRY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY DTD. 15.2.02. P14:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) 122/02/AD. DTD. 1.7.02. P15:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.56/02/AD DTD. 30.3.02. P16:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G./O.(MS) NO.188/02/AD DTD. 24.9.02. P17:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT COMPUTING THE LOSS INCURRED BY THE PETITIONER CERTIFIED BY THE CONCURRENT AUDITOR. P18:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT DUE TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE GOVT. TILL 30.9.06. P19:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 7.8.06 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE TO THE PETITIONER. P20:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 14.8.06 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE. P21:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DISTRICT LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (DLMC) ON THE VERIFICATION OF PROCUREMENT OF RUBBER BY THE PETITIONER IN TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT UNDER SPECIAL PACKAGE SCHEME. P22:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DLMC ON THE VERIFICATION OF PROCUREMENT OF RUBBER BY THE PETITIONER IN PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. UNER SPECIAL PACKAGE SCHEME. W.P.(C) NO.23425/2007 P23:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DLMC ON THE VERIFICATION OF PROCUREMENT OF RUBBER BY THE PETITIONER IN KOTTAYAM DISTRICT UNDER SPECIAL PACKAGE SCHEME. P24:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DLMC ON THE VERIFICATION OF PROCUREMENT OF RUBBER BY THE PETITIONER IN IDUKKI DISTRICT UNDER SPECIAL PACKAGE SCHEME. P25:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DLMC ON THE VERIFICATION OF PROCUREMENT OF RUBBER BY THE PETITIONER IN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT UNDER SPECIAL PACKAGE SCHEME. 26:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DLMC ON THE VERIFICATION OF PROCUREMENT OF RUBBER BY THE PETITIONER IN THRISSUR DISTRICT UNDER SPECIAL PACKAGE SCHEME. P27:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DLMC ON THE VERIFICATION OF PROCUREMENT OF RUBBER BY THE PETITIONER IN PALAKKAD DISTRICT UNDER SPECIAL PACKAGE SCHEME. P28:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DLMC ON THE VERIFICATION OF PROCUREMENT OF RUBBER BY THE PETITIONER IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT UNDER SPECIAL PACKAGE SCHEME. 29:- COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE JT. REGISTRAR, KOZHIKODE INFORMING THAT THE VERIFICATION REPORT WAS SENT TO GOVERNMENT UNDER SPECIAL PACKAGE SCHEME. P30:- COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT OF JT. REGISTRAR, KANNUR ON THE PROCUREMENT OF RUBBER BY THE PETITIONER IN KANNUR DISTRICT UNDER SPECIAL PACKAGE SCHEME. P31:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DLMC ON THE VERIFICATION OF PROCUREMENT OF RUBBER BY THE PETITIONER IN KASARGOD DISTRICT. P32:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.32494/06 DTD. 7.12.06. P33:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DTD. 14.2.06 IN WPC. NO.32913/06. P34:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.82/07/AD DTD. 1.6.06. P35:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TM(2) 18510/04 DTD. 11.6.07 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23425 OF 2007 (L) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Co-operative society incorporated under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. In this writ petition, their grievance is against Exts.P34 Government Order and P35 proceedings of the Director of Agriculture. It is stated that they were one of the agencies designated by the Government of Kerala for procuring natural rubber. Accordingly, natural rubber was procured and they were entitled to be paid the amount in terms of the Government orders. Petitioner states that for the natural rubber procured by them, they were entitled to be paid Rs.16,24,78,648.50. On the ground that for belated payment, they are entitled to interest, they are also claiming interest which is stated to be payable in terms of the Government orders on the basis of which rubber was procured by them. Their claim was considered and by Exts.P34 and P35, claim only to the extent of Rs.43,76,238 was admitted. It is therefore challenging Exts.P34 and P35 that the writ petition is filed. 2. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner WPC 23425/07 :2 : is that their claim is fully justified and supported by Exts.P21 to 31, verification reports submitted by the District Collectors and Joint Registrars, pursuant to Ext.P19 and that it was without making any reference to these documents that their claim was substantially turned down in the impugned orders. 3. Government have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, every attempt has been made to sustain the impugned orders. It is also stated in para 12 of the counter affidavit that there is a High Level Committee chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary to settle the disputes between the Government and the petitioner and that being a Government Organization, the petitioner can have their disputes settled at Governmental level. 4. The resolution of the claim made by the petitioner relying on the documents produced in the writ petition certainly calls for decision on factual disputes between the parties. This can certainly be done by the High Level Committee mentioned in para 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. 5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the High Level Committee mentioned in para 12 of the counter affidavit urging WPC 23425/07 :3 : its claim for the payment claimed by it and dealt with in Exts.P34 and P35. It is directed that if the claim is so raised, High Level Committee shall decide the matter duly adverting to the documents produced by the petitioner and with opportunity to it and untramelled by the findings in Exts.P34 and P35. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 months. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a portion of their claim is likely to be ignored by the High Level Committee for want of Government orders covering the period of collection of natural rubber. He also makes reference to the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.8540/2007 filed by RUBCO urging a similar claim. In that judgment, dealing with an identical situation, it was directed that it will be open to the High Level Committee to seek appropriate clarification from the Government in case any such situation arises. Having regard to the above, it is directed that in case any clarification is necessary to resolve the claim of the petitioner, it will be open to the High Level committee to seek appropriate orders from the Government also. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp