High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
DR.JACOB MANI v. STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 2669 of 1997(P)  RD-KL 3098 (12 February 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMOP No. 2669 of 1997(P)
1. DR.JACOB MANI
1. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.THOMAS ANTONY KALLANPALLY
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
O R D E R
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.O.P.No. 2669 OF 1997
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner applied leave for three years for undergoing Ph.D. course. The leave was sanctioned as per Ext.P1 order. He was asked to execute a bond which was executed as per Ext.P1. One of the conditions contained in the bond was that in case the Bounden fails to complete the course successfully due to indifference or negligence on his part the Bounden and sureties shall pay to the Government a penalty of Rs. 7,000/- (Seven thousand only). Petitioner completed the course and secured Ph.D degree also. But there was delay in submitting the thesis. On account of delay the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation stating that the delay occurred due to the reasons beyond his control. It was averred that due to the failure developed in the hardware around the time of submission, he could not submit the thesis in time and considerable amount of time was lost in salvaging the entries made and re-typed. The Government without assigning any reason rejected the request O.P.No. 2669 OF 1997 2 and issued Ext.P8 order imposing a penalty of Rs.9,625/-. Challenging that order this writ petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there are a number of instances wherein the Government itself had condoned the delay. He has made available copies of such an order. It is also argued that the bond can be forfeited only if the Bounden fails to complete the Ph.D course. In the case at hand the petitioner completed the course within the time limit and remitted the fees also. But there was delay in submitting the thesis. According to the petitioner he prepared the thesis but a defect developed in the hardware and he has to spend considerable amount of time in salvaging the entries made and re-typed. That was a very valid explanation. Without considering that explanation the penalty was imposed. There must be indifference or negligence on the part of the Bounden to forfeit the bond. On the facts and circumstances of the case it is not possible to hold that there was negligence or indifference on the part of the petitioner. The delay occurred due to the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. So the Government was not justified forfeiting the bond and imposing the penalty. The order is liable to be quashed. O.P.No. 2669 OF 1997 3 In the result, the original petition is allowed. All further proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent to realise the penalty in pursuance to Ext.P8 order is hereby quashed.
(K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE)ps O.P.No. 2669 OF 1997 4
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.O.P.No.2669/1997
J U D G M E N T
12th February, 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.