High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-10-28Petition disposed of; nothing survives; petitio...

C. L. ANTO v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 9667 of 2016

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
Judgment Date: 2022-10-28
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of; nothing survives; petition closed.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed of; nothing survives; petition closed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C. L. ANTO

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Executive Director Suchitwa Mission, Local Self Government Department, Thiruvananthapuram
Idamullakkal Grama Panchayath, Kollam District
Kunnamthanam Grama Panchayath, Pathanamthitta District
Kottayam Municipality, Kottayam District
Director of Vigilance, Directorate of Vigilance Department, Thiruvananthapuram
Secretary, Ministry of Forest and Environment, Department of On Conventional Energy, Government of India, New Delhi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. C. L. ANTO (Party-in-Person)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Joseph George
• Sri N. P. Prajeesh
• Sri Siby Chenappady, SC, Kottayam Municipality
• Sri N. Unnikrishnan
• C.S. Manilal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a writ petition (WP(C) No. 9667 of 2016) filed in the Kerala High Court by C. L. ANTO seeking extraordinary relief to regulate waste-management procurement by local bodies and government authorities across Kerala. The petitioner, a chief promoter and authorized representative of a cooperative society (NewsCo), challenges the award of tenders and certain actions by respondents including local self-government institutions and government departments in waste management arrangements, pressing for prohibitory and mandamus relief to enforce compliance with pre-qualification norms, policy guidelines, and international protocols. The prayers seek to restrain allegedly illegal award processes, direct adherence to the pre-qualification lists (Ext. P1) and purchase manual (Ext. P2), promote the petitioner’s participation in waste-management programs (Ext. P6/6a/6b), and ensure parity of law with similar cooperative societies, along with stringent directions to adhere to Central Rules, Kyoto Protocols, and other scientific parameters. The petitioner also demands scrutiny of funds to check nepotism and misallocation, and requests Vigilance action against the respondents. The respondents’ counter-affidavit (via Exts. R3(A)/R3(B)) indicates that a Panchayat committee cancelled Ext. P5 and called for a fresh tender, undermining the petition’s basis. Ultimately, the court closes the petition, noting that nothing substantial remains for adjudication. The proceedings illustrate rights, procurement governance, and governance challenges in state waste-management programs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Notification No. 1418/12/LSGD of I-2012 (Ext. P1)Government Order No. 1418/12/LSGD (Ext. P1)G.O. No. 03/2013/SPD (Ext. P2)Stores Purchase Manual (Ext. P2)Central Rules, 2000Kyoto International Protocols

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that the award process for waste-management contracts is flawed and violative of established norms (Exts. P1, P2) governing participation and procurement. He seeks prohibitory relief to prevent illegal award of contracts to outsiders, mandamus to enable his cooperative society’s participation in state waste-management programs, and strict adherence to policy guidelines, central rules, and international protocols. He also invokes No Risk Finance concepts, PPP/PSFAR models, and parities in law to demand equitable treatment with similar cooperatives; requests vigilance scrutiny for possible misallocation of public funds; and urges a broad mandate to participate in environmental measures under state supervision. respondents":"The respondents contend that Ext P5 tender was cancelled by the Panchayat committee (Exts. R3(A)/R3(B)) and a fresh tender was called, negating the petition’s basis. They rely on procedural and administrative actions already taken to remedy concerns, arguing that the petition raises no live controversy and should be closed without further adjudication. The counter-affidavit emphasizes compliance with official procedures and dismisses allegations of nepotism or misuse of funds."},

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against C. L. ANTO v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.`** ## **`FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 9667 OF 2016`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` C.L.ANTO AGED 60 YEARS CHIEF PROMOTER, CHAIRMAN DESIGNATE AND AUTHORIZED PERSON, NATIONAL ENERGY AND WASTE MANAGEMENT MULTIPURPOSE CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY (KERALA) LTD.REGD. NO. 4484, (NEWSCO), DREAM LAND BUILDING K.S.R.T.C ROAD, CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 307. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.C.L.ANTO (PARTY-IN-PERSON) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.` - `2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SUCHITWA MISSION, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, NANDANKODE JUNCTION, P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.` - `3 IDAMULAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH IDAMULAKKAL P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT -675 124 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.` - `4 KUNNAMTHANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUNNAMTHANAML P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 581, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETRY.` - `5 KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY KOTTAYAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 681 524, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.` - `6 DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -` WP(C ). No. 9667 OF 2016 2 ``` 695 014. ``` ``` 7SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ON CONVENTIONAL ENERGY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - PIN-110 032. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY, SC, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN C.S.MANILAL ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` GP - B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C ). No. 9667 OF 2016 3 ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 28 th day of October, 2022 The writ petition is filed for seeking following prayers: “I. issue an appropriate writ of prohibition, order or direction restraining the respondent 1-5-from proceeding with Ext. P-5, Ext.P5a and Ext.P5b in any illegal methods of award in of the contact to any other parties violating provisions of Ext.P1, Ext.P2 etc. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1-5 to consider and allow Ext.P6, P6a and Ext.P6b to enable the petitioner take to part in the waste management programs, of respondent No.3-5. Iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to give strict directions to the various local self governments like resp. no3,4 and 5 and other institutions to adhere to the Ext.P1, Ext.P2, Ext.P7, customs followed hitherto with respect to the products of WP(C ). No. 9667 OF 2016 4 State level co-operative societies and enforce parity in law to the petitioner iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to give strict directions to the various local self governments like resp. No.3,4 and 5 and other institutions to adhere to Central Rules,2000 Kyoto International Protocols and other scientific parameters regarding waste management techniques, the volume etc. of the digester and avoiding crude techniques like composting causing global warming to avoid catastrophes. v. Issue such other writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the utilization of the service of the petitioner and its co-operative society with its 63 That look societies to manage the waste and energy problems of the state, using his No Risk Finance Module, which is intimated to them, under the supervision of the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.5. vi Issue such other writ, order or direction to the respondent No.7 to strictly scrutinize the funds given to respondent No.1 and 2 as WP(C ). No. 9667 OF 2016 5 respondents No.1 and 2 are wasting the scare resource of the nation for nepotism and abetting global warming, using the funds of the state and funds from respondent No.7. vii. Issue such other writ, order or direction to the respondent No.1,2 and 7 to kindly consider the innovative Financial Principles like PPP, PSFAR and No Risk Finance in the management of Non conventional Energy and waste as Respondent No.1 and 2 are wasting the funds allotted by Res. No.7. viii. Kindly issue a writ, order or direction to Vigilance department Resp No.6 to register case against respondents 1-5 for willful violation of Ext.P1, P2 etc. ix Kindly issue writ, order or direction to respondents 1 and 2 to give parity in law as per the privileges accorded to similar cooperative societies in case of their products. x. issue such order writ or direction to respondents Nos. 1-5 to pay the cost and unnecessary expenses incurred by the petitioner due to the acts of commission and omissions by the respondents 1-5 and compensation for the inconveniences they have put the WP(C ). No. 9667 OF 2016 6 petitioner unnecessarily into. xi. any other writ or order to respondent No.1-5 for any other relief that this Hon’ble Court feels deemed fit to pass in the above circumstance of the case.” The 3[rd] respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that on 28.05.2016, the Panchayat a Committee unanimously decided to cancel Ext. P5, Tender Notice issued by the Panchayat and call for a fresh Tender and authorized Secretary to take necessary action. Exts. R3(A) and R3(B) show the same. In the light of the above, at this distance of time, nothing survives in the Writ Petition and accordingly same is closed. Sd/- **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE** mtk WP(C ). No. 9667 OF 2016 7 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9667/2016`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION NOTIFICATION NO. 1418/12/LSGD OF I-2012 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 SHOWING LIST OF PRE-QUALIFIED SERVICE PROVIDERS INCLUDING PETITIONER AND MANDATORY CLAUSES OF THE PETITIONER AS WELL DURING TENDERS FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT. ``` - `Exhibit P2 RELEVANT PORTIONOF TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.03/2013/SPD, STORES PURCHASE MANUEL, WHICH THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MANDATED TO FOLLOW AS WELL.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPRECIATION FROM DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.` - `Exhibit P4` - `TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF SATISFACTION FROM DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.` - `Exhibit P5` - `EXHIBIT P5a` - `EXHIBIT P5b` - `TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICES, OF RESP. NO.3,4,5 SHOWING VIOLATIONS OF G.O.1418 (EXT. P1), G.NO.03 (EXT.P2) ETC. NEEDING STAY.` - `Exhibit P6,` - `EXHIBIT P6a` - `EXHIBIT P6b` - `TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SENT TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3,4,5 RESECTIVELY URGING TIME TO ENABLE THE PETITIONER TO QUOTE FOR THE TENDER.` - `Exhibit P7` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF DIVISION BENCH OF HON.HIGH COURT OF KERALA TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER DURING WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ETC. ``` ``` Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT IN THE CAUSE BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD. ``` WP(C ). No. 9667 OF 2016 8