RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. T.M. Mohammad Youseff, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Ranjith Thampan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is the Managing Director of Kerala State Warehousing Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation' for short. He was appointed as the Managing Director of the Corporation by Ext.P1 Government order dated 5.10.2006. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P6 note whereby the Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture ordered that the petitioner's service as Managing Director of the Corporation is terminated with immediate effect and the General Manager (Construction) is given full additional charge of the Managing Director, until further orders. The petitioner contends that Ext.P6 has been issued in violation of the stipulations in Section 22 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short and that before Ext.P6 was issued, he was not put on notice or heard.

(3.) This writ petition was presented on 20.4.2009 and it came up for admission on 21.4.2009. On that day, while admitting the writ petition this Court stayed the termination of the service of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P6 and allowed him to continue as Managing Director of the Corporation for a period of six weeks. The respondents have filed I.A. No. 6381 of 2009 for vacating the interim order passed by this Court on 21.4.2009. Sri. T.M. Mohammad Youseff, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that as the decision evidenced by Ext.P6 was taken without notice to the petitioner and without affording him a reasonable opportunity to show cause why he should not be removed from office, Ext.P6 is liable to be set aside. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner relies on the stipulations in Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act in support of the said contention. Per Contra the learned Additional Advocate General, relying on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1963 AIR(SC) 395 and the averments in para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 6381 of 2009 contended that Ext.P6 has no efficacy and that the note made by the Hon'ble Minister on the file which is likely to be altered or changed, cannot be said to be an order of the Government. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that Ext.P6 has no efficacy and therefore the writ petition is premature. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the Government will take a decision on the question whether the petitioner should be removed from office, only after complying with the stipulations in Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act.