Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited v Bhaskaran K.P. and State of Kerala and Assistant Educational Officer Kunnumel and District Educational Officer

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** **FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/4TH ASWINA, 1936 RP.No. 801 of 2012 () IN WA.220/2012 --------------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WA 220/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 30.3.2012** **REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------** **KERALA STATE STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIKSTRICT MANAGER, P.M.KUTTY ROAD ERANJIPPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 525.** **BY ADV. SRI.JAYAPRADEEP. V, SC, KSBCDC** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. BHASKARAN.K.P., S/O.KUNJIRAMAN NAIR, UD CLERK, AEO'S OFFICE KUNNUMMEL, KUNNUMMEL P.O., . KAKKATTIL VATTOLY VIA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 525.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUNNUMMEL, KUNNUMMEL P.O., KAKKATTIL VATTOLY VIA KOZHIKOPDE DISTRICT-673 525.** **4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DD EDUCATION, MANAMCHIRA KOZHIKODE-673 525.** **R2 to R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & V.CHITAMBARESH , J ----------------------------------------------** ## **R.P.No. 801 of 2012 in W.A.No. 220 of 2012** ## **----------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 26[th] September, 2014** ## **O R D E R** ## **Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ.** This Review Petition is filed by the applicant/appellant to review the judgment dated 30[th] March, 2012 in W.A.No.220 of 2012. The Writ Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench after hearing learned counsel for the appellant. The Division Bench in its judgment has held that Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall not be attracted and the appellant cannot claim that the loan disbursed by the appellant is covered by Article 112 of the Limitation Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of the application, contended that the applicant is functioning within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He submits that since the applicant is the State, it 2 _**RP.801/12**_ ought to have extended the benefit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 3. We have considered the submissions. The mere fact that the applicant claims to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India does not lead to the conclusion that the applicant can claim benefit of Article 112 of the Limitation Act. Article 112 of the Limitation Act uses the words 'State Government' and 'Central Government'. The said issue has been considered by several High Courts and it has been held that the State within the meaning of Article 112 is not used in Article 112 of the Limitation Act. Reference is made to the judgment in _**Indira Nigam v. State of U.P**_ (Laws (ALL) 2013 (10) 119). Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment read as under: _“8. On the other hand, Sri Dev Brat Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period of limitation for recovery of dues by the Corporation shall be only three years as per Limitation Act either_ 3 _**RP.801/12**_ _Article 19 or Article 21. Sri Mukherjee further submits that Article 112 shall not be applicable in the present case since action has not been taken by the State Government rather recovery certificate has been issued by the Corporation. It is submitted that the benefit of Article 112 cannot be extended to the Corporation and the said Article is applicable only with regard to Central Government or any State Government. Whether Article 112 of the Limitation Act can be taken recourse by the corporation in the facts of the present case, is the moot question to be answered. A particular period of limitation for filing a suit by the Central government or State Government has been provided for in the Statute of Limitation for a purpose and object. The challenge to Article 149 of the Limitation Act, 1908 which was pari - materia to Article 113 of the 1963 Act, was considered and repelled by the apex Court in AIR 1961 SC 1704 Nav Rattanmal and others Vs. State of Rajasthan. While noticing the purpose and object of Article 149 of the Limitation Act, apex Court laid down following in paragraph 10:_ 4 _**RP.801/12**_ _“10...... It is with this background that the question of the special provision contained in art. 149 of the Act has to be viewed. First, we have the fact that in the case of the Government, if a claim becomes barred by limitation, the loss falls on the public, i.e., on the community in general and to the benefit of the private individual who derives advantage by the lapse of time. This itself would appear to indicate a sufficient ground for differentiating between the claims of an individual and the claims of the community at large. Next, it may be mentioned that in the case of governmental machinery, it is a known fact that it does not move as quickly as in the case of individuals. Apart from the delay occurring in the proper officers ascertaining that a cause of action has accrued - Government being an impersonal body, before a claim is launched there has to be inter - departmental correspondence, consultations, sanctions obtained_ 5 _**RP.801/12**_ _according to the rules. These necessarily take time and it is because of these features which are sometimes characterised as red - tape that there is delay in the functioning of government offices.......”_ _The words “Central Government” or “State Government” have not been defined in the Limitation Act, 1963. “The Government” has been defined in Section 3(23) of the General Clauses Act 1897 in following words:_ _“(23) “Government” or “the Government” shall include both the Central Government and any State Government;”_ _9. The submission of Chandra Shekhar Singh is that in the words “Central Government or “any State Government” used under Article 112, the Corporations owned and controlled by the Central Government or State Government have also to be read._ _10. The word “State” has been defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Definition of word the 'State' under Article 12_ 6 _**RP.801/12**_ _is inclusive definition which includes the Government, Parliament of India and the Government and Legislature of each States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The definition of the word “the State” as contained in part II of the Constitution of India is for purpose of part III and Part IV of the Constitution of India. Article 12 itself indicates that the word “the State” is a word of wider definition and it encompasses in it other authorities under the control of the Government of India. The Corporation, respondent no.5 may be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 but the question is as to whether the words “Central Government” and “State Government” used in Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should be read as the word “State”. When the Limitation Act, 1963 was enacted the Parliament was well aware of the concept of Central government, State Government and concept of “State”. The Limitation Act, 1963 itself indicates that the word “Local Authority” is not included within the meaning of Central Government or State_ 7 _**RP.801/12**_ _Government which is apparent from the fact that a separate limitation period has been provided for local authority in the Limitation Act under Article 111 Article, which is quoted below:_ _111. By or on behalf of any local authority for possession of any public street or road or any part thereof from which it has been dispossessed or of which it has discontinued the possession. Thirty years The date of the dispossession or discontinuance._ _Had the Legislature intended to include local authority within the meaning of State Government or Central government under Article 112, there was no occasion to provide for separate limitation period for local authority. It is thus, clear that local authority was never intended by the Legislature to be included in words 'Central Government' or 'State Government' although the local authority is covered within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, any authority/Corporation_ 8 _**RP.801/12**_ _which may be State within the meaning of Article 12 does not ipso facto become entitled to be treated as Central Government or State Government within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.”_ We do not find any error in the judgment, which may warrant exercise of jurisdiction of this Court. The Review Petition is rejected. **ASHOK BHUSHAN ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE** **V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE** vgs