Disposed

C.v.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Apr 2009WP(C)/7029/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala examined a writ petition challenging the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's demand for Rs.300 per month as ground rent from a disabled telephone booth operator. The Court held the demand is not arbitrary but an interim arrangement pending final verdicts in related appeals.

What did the court decide?

The demand of Rs.300 per month as ground rent was held not arbitrary or unreasonable as an interim arrangement subject to final verdicts in related cases.

C.v.Varghese Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 7029 of 2007(J)

PETITIONER:

C.V.VARGHESE, S/O.MATHAI, VARUVATHIL HOUSE, VATTIPPURAM EAST, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM SRI.T.K.KOSHY

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶17

SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER OF TELECOM, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (BSNL), PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶18

ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R2TOR4

¶19

SRI. MATHEWS K. PHILIP, SC

¶20

SRI. V. TEK CHAND, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2/04/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 7029/2007

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIMEN OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE CO PY OF THE JUDGMENT DATD 6/7/1995 IN O.P. NO.712/1995 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 20/2/2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBITP 4: TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 25/01/2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RSPONDENT.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

pac

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.7029 OF 2007

¶34

Dated this the 2^nd day of April, 2009

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The steps taken by the KSRTC to realise an additional sum of Rs.300/- per month as ground rent, over and above 10% of the commission amount obtainable to the persons like the petitioner in providing the facility to run a telephone booth in the premises of the KSRTC bus stand are under challenge.

¶37

The case of the petitioner is that he is a physically handicapped person, who was permitted to run a telephone booth free of cost, in the premises of the third respondent's bus stand at Pathanamthitta as per Ext.P1 agreement. Subsequently, the KSRTC took a decision deviating from the original stand and to realise some amounts from the persons like the petitioner as ground rent by way of augmentation of the revenue, which on challenge by the aggrieved persons led to Ext.P2 verdict.

¶38

As borne by Ext.P2, this Court observed that, along with the clause in the Agreement offering the premises to be occupied free of cost, there was yet another clause making it

¶39

W.P.(C) No.7029 of 2007

¶40

¶41

clear that the premises were liable to be vacated as and when demanded by the KSRTC. After considering the relative rights and liabilities, this Court passed Ext.P2 judgment observing that the persons like the petitioner are liable to pay 10% of the commission receivable by them as the ground rent. This verdict has admittedly become final, since not subjected to challenge.

¶42

The KSRTC has filed a counter affidavit stating that the extension of any concession can be considered only on the basis of the actual financial capability of the person concerned and that the physical disability alone cannot be made a yard stick in this regard. It is also pointed out that Ext.P1 is only a “specimen agreement” and not a copy of the agreement actually executed with the petitioner. The petitioner, according to the KSRTC, is very much stable and he is having landed properties and such other assets.

¶43

The facts and circumstances leading to Ext.P2 have been rather admitted by the KSRTC in their counter affidavit. However, it is added that the Board of Directors subsequently decided to collect a nominal amount from the licensees

¶44

W.P.(C) No.7029 of 2007

¶45

¶46

towards ground rent and accordingly, a sum of Rs.500/- was fixed as the monthly ground rent. The above decision was challenged by the telephone booth operators like the petitioner by filing O.P.Nos.10231/2003, 18006/2003 and 10406/2003 and this Court had passed an interim order after hearing both the sides, allowing the KSRTC to levy 60% of the said amount towards the ground rent in addition to the 10% commission as stipulated in Ext.P2. It was accordingly that a sum of Rs.300/per mensum was demanded by the KSRTC (forming 60% of Rs.500) and hence that the action pursued by the KSRTC can never be assailed under any circumstances.

¶47

No reply affidavit has filed by the petitioner rebutting the contentions in the above counter affidavit. It is not revealed whether any final verdict has been passed in the above writ petitions either upholding the challenge raised by the petitioners therein or permitting the KSRTC to realise the sum of Rs.500/- per mensum as originally fixed by them in addition to the amount covered by Ext.P2.

¶48

In the above circumstances, it is made clear that the demand made by the KSRTC to realise a sum of Rs.300/- from

¶49

W.P.(C) No.7029 of 2007

¶50

¶51

the petitioner as ground rent cannot be held as arbitrary or unreasonable in any manner. However, this shall remain as an interim arrangement and the ultimate right/liability will depend upon the final verdict in the cases as referred to herein before.

¶52

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶53

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶54

pac

C.v.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.v.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukumaran Nair K.R. Vs State of Kerala

Sindu Bernard Vs State of Kerala and Another

R.Ayyappan Nair Vs the Chief Postmaster General

R.S.Sasikumar Vs State of Kerala

Florencia Elias Vs State of Kerala

Paul Varghese Vs Keralal Water Authority