SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1062

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J.
S.T. SADIQ S/O THAHA – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 18663 of 2016
Decided On : 13-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: P.B. KRISHNAN, P.M. NEELAKANDAN, S. NITHIN ANCHAL, SABU GEORGE, P.B. SUBRAMANYAN.
For the Respondents: M.K. CHANDRA MOHANDAS, JELSON J. EDAMPADAM, PIRAPPANCODE V.S. SUDHIR, K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, T.B. HOOD, SINDHUMOL T.P.

The amendments to the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 were declared unconstitutional for violating Article 14, as they discriminated against similarly situated factories and undermined judicial authority.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 - Sections 3A, 6A, and 9 - Constitutionality of amendments challenged - The petitioner contested the legality of the acquisition of his factory under the amended provisions, asserting violation of constitutional rights and discrimination against similarly situated factories. (Paras 1, 8, 27)

(B) Legislative Power - The court emphasized that the legislature cannot annul a final judgment of the court, and any law that directly undermines such judgments is unconstitutional. (Paras 22, 24)

(C) Discrimination - The court found that the provisions of the amended Act were discriminatory as they did not provide just compensation and treated similarly situated factories differently. (Paras 26, 27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner owned a cashew factory taken over by the government under the 1974 Act, which was later challenged after amendments were made in 2015. The Supreme Court had previously ruled in favor of returning factories to their owners, but the petitioner’s factory was not returned. (Paras 2-6)

Findings of Court:
The court declared Sections 3A and 6A of the amended Act unconstitutional, emphasizing that the provisions were arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The factory's possession was ordered to be restored to the petitioner. (Paras 27)

Issues: The main issues included the constitutionality of the amended provisions and whether they discriminated against the petitioner compared to other factories. (Paras 22, 27)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the legislature cannot directly annul a court's judgment and that the amended provisions were unconstitutional as they created discrimination without just compensation. (Paras 24, 27)

Result: Writ Petition allowed; Sections 3A and 6A declared unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging Sections 3A, 6A and 9 of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 1974 Act) after its amendment by the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act, 2015) and the order dated 6.8.2015 issued by the Government of Kerala taking over the Cashew Factory belonging to the petitioner under Section 3A of the 1974 Act. The petitioner also prays for a direction to restore the possession of the Cashew Factory of the petitioner and claims compensation for the illegal acquisition/taking over of the factory.

Facts in brief:

2. The petitioner was the owner of about 2.77 acres of land where a Cashew Factory known as M/s. Rajmohan Cashews Limited was functioning. According to the petitioner, the land/factory was leased out to the aforesaid M/s. Rajmohan Cashews Limited for a period of five years from 05.05.1981. It is stated that the factory and the associated buildings etc. were confined to about 97 cents out of the total extent of 2.77 acres and the remaining land was being used for agricultural purposes. On 02.05.1985, the petitioner leased out the factory and its premises to M/s. Janso Exports (P) Ltd. for the period from 02.05.1985 to 02.05.1987. On 19.09.1985 the Government of Kerala issued Ext.P2 notice (under Rule 3 of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Rules, 1974) proposing to acquire/take over the Cashew Factory and providing to the petitioner and to the then occupier (M/s. Janso Exports Pvt. Ltd.) the right to make their objections. The grounds taken in Ext.P2 were that the factory was lying closed and there was no possibility of restarting its functioning in the immediate future. It was stated that the Government was, therefore, of the opinion that the situation may lead to large-scale unemployment of workers in the Cashew Factory. The petitioner filed an objection to Ext.P2 notice and also approached this Court by filing O.P. No. 9499/1985 challenging the validity of the notice as well as the validity of the provisions contained in the 1974 Act. On 11.06.1986, the Government of Kerala issued an order to take over the Cashew Factory and the entire land appurtenant to the same on the ground that there has been large-scale unemployment. O.P. No. 9499/1985 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.06.1986 was dismissed by this Court on 20.01.1994. The petitioner preferred S.L.P. (C) No. 8219/1994 to challenge the judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 9499/1985.

3. On 12.5.1994, the Supreme Court through its judgment in Indian Nut Products & Others v. Union of India, (1994) 4 SCC 269 set aside the acquisition of various factories (other than that of the petitioner) on the ground that the notices issued were not in accordance with the requirement of the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the 1974 Act. The State Government was required to return the possession of the factories to the respective owners. Thereafter the case of the petitioner was disposed of (after granting leave) and it was declared that the matter was covered by the judgment in Indian Nut Products (supra). It was also held that the directions issued in paragraph 13 of the judgment in Indian Nut Products (supra) will apply to the petitioner as well. The order of the Supreme Court in the case of the petitioner is on record as Ext.P5.

4. Out of the total number of 46 factories that had been taken over under the 1974 Act, 36 had been entrusted to the Cashew Development Corporation and the remaining 10 factories were entrusted to the Kerala State Cashew Workers Apex Industrial Co-operative Society (CAPEX). Following the orders issued by the Supreme Court, out of the total number of 46 factories taken over by the Government in the manner indicated above, all the factories which had been taken over and entrusted to the Cashew Development Corporation (36 in number) were returned to the respective o

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top