High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-02-01Writ petition allowed; Exts. P5 to P10 set aside.

M.R. Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C). No. 13952/2009

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2012-02-01
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; Exts. P5 to P10 set aside.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Exts. P5 to P10 set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M. R. Padmanabhan

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Department of Taxes (E), Kerala Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
District Collector, Ernakulam
District Treasury Officer, Ernakulam
District Registrar (General), Ernakulam
Officer In Charge, Stamp Depot, Ernakulam
Omana James

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri V. Philip Mathew
• Sri N. K. Thankachan

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. M. G. Lisha
• Sri N. M. James
• Sri T. Madhu

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Exts. P5 to P10, being orders issued by the Lok Ayukta and the District authorities directing the District Collector to issue stamp vendor licences to the sixth respondent on the basis of the pre-existing rules at the time of the application. Ext.P5 (24 July 2007) directed the District Collector to consider applications under the existing Rules; Ext.P6 (2 September 2008) instructed issuing licences in accordance with the Rules as they stood when the application was filed; Ext.P7 (31 March 2009) reiterated that the Collector should pass orders within one month; Exts.P8 and P9 are minutes of meetings; Ext.P10 directed the District Treasury Officer to provide the licence. The petitioner contends that Government policy had moved towards framing new guidelines and there was a temporary prohibition on licensing, so the directions based on pre-existing rules are arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction. It is argued that the Lok Ayukta’s role is investigatory and cannot issue mandatory directions to the District Collector, and that licensing decisions must be anchored in the rules in force at the time of licensing, not merely at the time of application. The respondent’s case rests on the Lok Ayukta’s broad powers to entertain mal-administration and to direct corrective action. The court ultimately finds that the directions were beyond the statutory framework and quashes Exts. P5–P10, allowing the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 2(k)(i) of the Lok Ayukta Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Maladministration (as defined in the Lok Ayukta Act)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that Exts. P5 to P10 amount to an excess of jurisdiction by the Lok Ayukta, directing the District Collector to issue licences under rules that existed at the time of the application despite a government policy and orders restricting such licensing. He relies on decisions that Lok Ayukta has limited jurisdiction and must act within statutory boundaries, and on authorities that licensing must reflect the rules in force on the date of licensing, not the date of application. The petitioner contends that the directions effectively compel licensing contrary to state policy, constituting mal-administration by reliance on pre-existing rules.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Lok Ayukta has wide jurisdiction to entertain complaints of mal-administration and to issue directions to correct or expedite action, including directing licensing under pre-existing rules when circumstances require. They argue that Government policy and the licensing framework are in flux and must be resolved by the authorities, and that the District Collector has a duty to act in accordance with the rules then in force while the Lok Ayukta’s inquiry can report and direct as warranted by mal-administration.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala v. Sheela	2009(2) I.L.R (Kerala) 660	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioner to argue Lok Ayukta’s jurisdiction is limited; court does not adopt this proposition in its final ruling.
K.K. Ramachandran Master v. The Kerala Lok Ayukta and Others	2006(4) KLT 166	Mentioned Only	Cited to claim wide discretionary powers of Lok Ayukta; court references but does not rely on this as the governing basis for its decision.
State of Kerala v. Swamidas and Others	2009(4)KHC 302	Positive	Used to support the principle that licensing must be decided with reference to the situation on the date of licensing, not merely the date of application.
Asset Homes Private Ltd. (M/s.) v. State of Kerala and Another	2011 (2) K.H.C. 559	Positive	relied upon to reinforce the requirement that licences be issued under the rules in force at the time of licensing.

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 M.R. Padmanabhan 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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/12TH MAGHA 1933** **WPC.No. 13952 of 2009 (L) ---------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S): -------------------** **M.R.PADMANABHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.S.RAMAIYYAR, PRESIDENT KERALA STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, RESIDING AT SARANAM C.P.UMMER ROAD, KOCHI-35.** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.N.K.THANKACHAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **---------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF TAXES (E) KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.** ## **3. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.** ## **4. DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM.** **5. OFFICER IN CHARGE, STAMP DEPOT, ERNAKULAM.** **6. OMANA JAMES, BUILDING NO.27/3170, OPP.REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.G. LISHA R6 BY ADVS. SRI.N.M.JAMES** **SRI.T.MADHU** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **svs** **W.P.(C). NO. 13952/2009** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1: COPY OF THE G.O.(P)156/2007/TD DATED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 13/07/2007.** - **P2: COPY OF THE G.O.23/2003/TD DATED 05/02/2003 REGULATING OF STAMP VENDORS.** - **P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SECRETARY OF THE KERALA STAMP VENDOR'S ASSOCIATION TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24/04/2009** - **P4: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13/05/2009 FROM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.** - **P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/07/2007 IN COMPLAINT NO.2702/2006.** - **P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/09/2008 IN I.A. NO.705/2007 IN COMPLAINT NO.2702/2006.** - **P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2009 IN I.A. NO.705/2007.** - **P8: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT STAMP VENDOR LICENSE COMMITTEE HELD ON 21/04/2009.** - **P9: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21/04/2009.** - **P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/04/2009 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO THIRD RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** - **R6(a):COPY OF THE APPALICATION DATED 30/05/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LICENSING AUTHORITY.** ## **R6(b):COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31/05/2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **R6(c):COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09/10/2006 FILED BY 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE LOK AYUKTA.** - **R6(d):COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13/04/2007 OF ADDL.COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE.** ## **R6(F): COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 01/11/2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** ## **R6(g):COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/09/2008 OF STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,DIS. TREASURY ERNAKULAM.** - **R6 (h):COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/05/2009 IN I.A. NO.705/2007 IN COMPLAINT NO.2702/2006 OF THE LO,K AYUKTA.** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **svs** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.13952 of 2009 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of February 2012 ## **J U D G M E N T** This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P5 to P10 orders. Ext.P5 is an order dated 24/7/2007 passed by the Lok Ayuktha directing the District Collector to consider the applications submitted by Smt.Omana James who is the 6[th] respondent herein for the grant of stamp vendor's licence on the basis of the “existing Rules” and to pass final orders within a period of one month. Ext.P6 is a consequential order dated 02/09/2008 in which there is a direction issued to the District Collector to issue licence applied for by the 6[th] respondent in accordance with the Rules as it stood at the time when the application was filed by her and to report the matter. Ext.P7 is another order dated 31/3/2009 reiterating that the Collector should pass orders within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Ext.P8 is the minutes of discussions held in the Chambers of the District Collector on 21/4/2009. Ext.P9 is another minutes of meeting held in the Chambers of the District Collector. Ext.P10 is an order passed by the District Collector directing the W.P.C.No.13952/09 2 District Treasury Officer to provide stamp vendor licence to the 6[th] respondent. 2. It is inter alia contended by the petitioner that as per the existing Rules, Ext.P1 the 6[th] respondent is not entitled for getting a stamp vendor's licence as the Government has come up with a procedure for issuing such licence and it is only by virtue of the order passed by the Lok Ayuktha that the said guidelines have not been followed and the licence issued in favour of the 6[th] respondent based on the Rules that existed as on the date of application. The main thrust of the argument of the petitioner is that the Lok Ayuktha has no jurisdiction to pass such an order and even assuming that it has jurisdiction in the matter, the same was exceeded by issuing a mandatory direction to the District Collector, when the Act does not contemplate such directions to be issued. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgments in **State of Kerala v. Sheela** [ **2009(2)I.L.R (Kerala) 660]** for the proposition that the Lok Ayuktha has no jurisdiction to act beyond the scope of jurisdiction vested in it. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 6[th] W.P.C.No.13952/09 3 respondent contended that going by the judgment in **K.K.Ramachandran Master v. The Kerala Lok Ayukta and Others [2006(4) KLT 166]** it can be seen that Lok Ayuktha has wide discretionary powers and has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The learned counsel also relied upon the definition of “Mal Administration” to contend that the action of the District Administration was unreasonable, unjust and oppressive or improperly discriminated as provided under Section 2(k)(i) of the Act and therefore Lok Ayuktha has jurisdiction in the matter. 4. On a perusal of the complaint filed by the 6[th] respondent before the Lok Ayuktha it could be seen that the main allegation is regarding the delay on the part of the District Collector to issue licence whereas it is seen that there was a Government Order prohibiting issue of such a licence as the Government was contemplating to issue guidelines in the matter relating to appointment of stamp vendors. In that view of the matter, the District Authorities cannot be found fault in not issuing the licence and for that reason, it cannot be termed as “Mal Administration”. W.P.C.No.13952/09 4 5. Apart from that, the Lokayuktha has no jurisdiction to issue mandatory direction but only to conduct enquiry and report the matter to the Government. Contrary to that, it is seen that mandatory directions are seen issued to the District Collector to comply with the directions. It is also seen that directions have been issued to consider the application of the 6[th] respondent on the basis of the Rule existing as on the date of the application. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner strongly relied upon the judgment of this Court in **State of Kerala and Another v. K.Swamidas and Others [2009(4)KHC 302]** and **Asset Homes Private Ltd. (M/s.) and Another v. State of Kerala and Another [2011 (2) K.H.C. 559]** for the proposition that licence can be issued by a competent authority only with reference to the situation as on the date of issuing the licence and not on the date of application. Such being the law laid down by this Court and also by the Apex Court, the direction to issue a licence on the basis of pre-existing Rule is bad in law. 6. Therefore the orders passed by the Lok Ayuktha is clearly without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside and therefore the consequential orders are also liable to be set aside. W.P.C.No.13952/09 5 This writ petition is therefore allowed by setting aside Exts.P5 to P10. **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr W.P.C.No.13952/09 6 W.P.C.No.13952/09 7 ## **THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J.** Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011