High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-10-06Writ petition disposed of with directions to th...

K.T. Rocky and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. ASHA
Judgment Date: 2020-10-06
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain the appeals Exts.P1 to P10 on production of the same by the petitioners and consider the question of maintainability and delay, including whether the petitioners had filed the appeals before the 3rd respondent, after hearing the petitioners, with further proceedings depending on the decision.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain Exts.P1–P10 and decide maintainability and delay, with further proceedings to follow based on outcome.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.T. Rocky
K.R. Gebriel
C.M. Antony
Ismaria
ShjiJu Antony
T.J. Vincent
George Joseph
Binu Francis C.R
C.V. Tomy
Bastin Paul

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management, State Relief Commissioner and Convener, Kerala State Disaster Management Authority, Observatory Hills, Vikasa Bhavan P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 033
Permanent Lok Adalat, Ernakulam, Kaloor, PIN-682 017
District Collector/Chairman, Disaster Management Authority, Ernakulam, Collectorate, Kakkanad-682 030
State Relief Commissioner and Convener, Kerala State Disaster Management Authority, Observatory Hill, Vikasa Bhavan P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 033

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Sherry J. Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Princy Xavier, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, residents of Ernakulam, assert they suffered loss of homestead and damages in the 2018 flood and contend that their relief claims were inadequately processed, with only Rs 10,000 provided as flood relief. They pursued second appeals before the Permanent Lok Adalat after learning that their first appeals filed through the Panchayath were not properly recorded or accessible due to missing records and alleged gaps in the rebuild Kerala portal. The petitioners furnished Exts.P1–P10 as evidence of their attempts to move the appeals, but the Permanent Lok Adalat reportedly did not entertain them on the ground that the necessary details were not available on the rebuild website, as reflected in Ext.P3A and related materials. The petition states that the first appeals were submitted via the District Collector through the Panchayath, and that the petitioners had to assemble available documents to file second appeals. The Government Pleader counters that there is no proof of timely appeals before the District Disaster Management Authority or before the Lok Adalat, noting that aside from Ext.P3A there is no endorsement in other documents. The court, citing the directions in Shibi A.A and Others v. Union of India and Others, directs the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain Exts.P1–P10, determine maintainability, consider delays, and decide whether the petitioners also filed before the 3rd respondent, proceeding further based on that outcome.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that, having lost their homesteads in the 2018 floods, they challenged the Rs 10,000 flood-relief amount as inadequate and pursued second appeals before the Permanent Lok Adalat after discovering that their first-appeal records were not properly maintained. They assert that they filed second appeals via the Panchayath and through the District Disaster Management Authority, but were thwarted when the Lok Adalat refused to entertain Exts.P1–P10 due to the rebuild portal's unavailability of their details. They argue that the delay and procedural issues are attributable to non-records, and that Shibi A.A. directs a broader access to relief channels. They request the Lok Adalat be allowed to consider maintainability and whether they filed before the 3rd respondent as well.

Contentions of Respondents

The State respondents submit that there is no credible proof that the petitioners filed timely appeals before the District Disaster Management Authority or the Permanent Lok Adalat. They point to Ext.P3A as the only endorsement showing non-availability of details on the rebuild website and note the absence of similar endorsements in other matters. They argue that without timely appeals and proper records, entertainability by the Lok Adalat is untenable and that the court should not compel action beyond the established timelines. The Government Pleader emphasizes that the record does not establish compliance with the time limits set in Shibi A.A and related directions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shibi A.A and Others v. Union of India and Others	2019 (1) KHC 744	Positive	Cited as basis for directing the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain second appeals; the judgment guides the present proceedings on entertaining such appeals.

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 K.T. Rocky and Others 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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** ## **TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 14TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**K.T. ROCKY**| |---|---| ||**AGED 60 YEARS**| ||**S/O THOMAS, KUTTIKKAL HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O.**| ||**PIN-682 027.**| |**2**|**K.R.GEBRIEL,**| ||**AGED 70 YEARS**| ||**S/O K.A RAPHEAL, KOMARAPPILLY HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O.**| ||**PIN 682 027.**| |**3**|**C.M. ANTONY,**| ||**C/O ELZY, CHEMBOLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANDANAD,**| ||**KOTHAD P.O. PIN-682 027.**| |**4**|**ISMARIA,**| ||**AGED 66 YEARS**| ||**W/O OSSY GONSALWAZ, PALLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**KANDANAD, KOTHAD P.O. PIN-682 027.**| |**5**|**SHJIJU ANTONY,**| ||**AGED 39 YEARS**| ||**S/O T.C.JOSEPH, THOTTAKATH HOUSE, KANDANAD,**| ||**KOTHAD P.O. PIN-682 027.**| |**6**|**T.J. VINCENT**| ||**AGED 61 YEARS**| ||**S/O JOSEPH, THAIKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, KORAMPADAM, KOTHAD**| ||**P.O., PIN-682 027.**| |**7**|**GEORGE JOSEPH**| ||**AGED 40 YEARS**| ||**S/O GEORGE, KORAMPADOM, KOTHAD P.O.,**| ||**PIN-682 027.**| |**8**|**BINU FRANCIS C.R,**| ||**AGED 49 YEARS**| ||**S/O RAPHEAL, KORAMPADOM, KOTHAD P.O.,**| ||**PIN-682 027.**| |**9**|**C.V.TOMY,**| ||**AGED 62 YEARS**| **WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)** 2 **S/O VARUTHUKUTTY, CHAMMINIKODATH HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O., PIN-682 027.** - **10 BASTIN PAUL, AGED 45 YEARS S/O M.S SEBASTIAN, MUZHAGUMTHARA HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O., PIN-682 027.** **BY ADV. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, STATE RELIEF COMMISSIONER AND CONVENER, KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, OBSERVATORY HILLS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** - **2 PERMANENT LOKA ADALAT, ERNAKULAM, KALOOR, PIN-682 017.** - **3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN, DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD-682 030.** - **4 STATE RELIEF COMMISSIONER AND CONVENER, KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, OBSERVATORY HILL, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT.PRINCY XAVIER , GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)** 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners are residents of Ernakulam who claim that they lost their homestead and suffered a lot of damages in the flood of 2018. Their complaint is that the second appeal preferred by them before the Lok Adalat are not being accepted. According to them, aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sum of Rs.10000 towards flood relief, they had preferred appeals before the District Disaster Management Authority through their Panchayath. They claim that those appeals were rejected on the ground that their details were not available in the website of re-build Kerala. It is stated that they have thereupon approached the Permanent Lok Adalath in the light of the directions of this Court in the judgment in **Shibi A.A and Others v. Union of India and Others** [2019 (1) KHC 744], filing second appeals Exts.P1 to P10. But the Permanent Lok Adalath did not entertain their **WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)** 4 appeals as per Exts.P1A, P2A, P3A, P4A, P5, P6A, P7A, P8A, P9A and P10A on the ground that details are not available in the website of re-build Ernakulam. On that ground it is stated that the second appeals are not entertained by the permanent Lok Adalat which has been designated to entertain the second appeals by this Court in **Shibi A.A and Others v. Union of India and Others** [2019 (1) KHC 744]. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as the first appeals were submitted before the District Collector through the Panchayath they do not have the records with them and therefore they filed the second appeals collecting the available documents. 3. Learned Government Pleader submits that there is nothing to show that they preferred appeals in time either before the District Disaster Management Authority or before the Permanent Lok Adalath. It is pointed out only available document which contains the endorsement that the details are **WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)** 5 not available in the website of re-build Ernakulam is in Ext.P3A and that no endorsement is seen made in other appeals or orders on appeals. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that petitioners have not submitted their appeals within the time permitted in the judgment in **Shibi** 's case (supra) or even within extended time. 5. Since petitioners assert that they have filed appeals through the Grama Panchayat, I am of the view of that it would be open for the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain the appeals and consider all the questions including on their claim that appeals were preferred before the 3[rd] respondent. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Permanent Lok Adalath to entertain the appeals Exts.P1 to P10 on production of the same by the petitioners and consider the question of maintainability and including the question whether they had filed the appeals before the 3[rd] respondent as well as on the question of delay involved, after **WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)** 6 hearing the petitioners and to take further proceedings depending on the decision. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE** AS **WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)** 7 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 1.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P1 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED DATED 25.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 25.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P 2A THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 8.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 1.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P 3A THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 29.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P 4A THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 29.10.2019 SUBMITTED OF 5TH PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 10.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P6A THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER** **WP(C).NO.1353 OF 2020(T)** 8 ## **EXHIBIT P7** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 9.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P7A THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL REJECTION LETTER DATED 29.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P 8A THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 8.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 30.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P 9A. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 28.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P10A THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 27.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER**