Dismissed

K.D.Baby v. Kochi International Airport Authority

Kerala HC3 Aug 2015WA/1718/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal regarding land acquisition and taxi ply privileges was dismissed. The bench upheld the single judge's order, holding that the appellant’s voluntary relinquishment of rights could not be reopened later despite acquiring a license and new vehicle, as such one-time facilities had attained finality.

What did the court decide?

The intra-court appeal fails and is dismissed; no interference with the single judge’s judgment is found.

K.D.Baby Vs Kochi International Airport Authority — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2015/12TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 1718 of 2010 ( ) IN WP(C).27538/2009

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27538/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 30-06-2010

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

K.D.BABY, S/O.DEVASSY, KOLENCHERRY HOUSE, EDANAD KARA, SREEMOOLANAGARAM PO CHOWARA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.DILIP SRI.K.C.KIRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶11

1. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, NEDUMBASSERY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 535.

¶12

2. AIRPORT TAXI DRIVERS'SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, NEDUMBASSERY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 535.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS R BY SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & SUNIL THOMAS, JJ.

¶16

W.A.No.1718 of 2010

¶17

.................................................................... Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2015.

¶18

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶19

1.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

¶20

learned standing counsel for the first respondent.

¶21

2.Appellant is one whose land was acquired along with other items

¶22

for the purpose of the first respondent, Kochi International Airport Authority. It appears that there was an arrangement whereby those who possess driving licence were permitted to ply taxies on becoming members of the Airport Taxi Drivers' Society, who is the second respondent herein. At that time, the appellant did not possess a licence and, therefore, he executed Ext.R1(a) by which he relinquished his eligibility to ply taxi to his brother. It

¶23

appears that, with the passage of time, for whatever be the reason, the appellant took the stand that he should be given back

¶24

WA1718/10

¶25

-2-

¶26

his eligibility to ply taxi, since he has purchased a new vehicle utilising Bank loan and he has driving licence by now. He also indicates that his brother does not own a car and is, therefore, not eligible to continue under the new guidelines of the Airport Authority.

¶27

3.The learned single Judge has found that Ext.R1(a) having been executed as a relinquishment, nothing more survives for consideration. We are of the view that individual problems of this nature ought not to gain attention in the domain of management of the Airports, since all such arrangements are one time facilities. When offer was made to operate taxi if one had driving licence and that offer could not be utilised, the appropriate way for the appellant at that point of time was to enter into a transaction by which such right was relinquished in favour of his brother. That is a one time act, which has attained finality by itself coming into being. The appellant cannot later on turn round to have such relinquishment re-opened. We do not, therefore,

¶28

WA1718/10

¶29

-3-

¶30

find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned

¶31

single Judge. This intra-court appeal, therefore fails.

¶32

In the result, this appeal is dismissed.

¶33

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶34

(SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE)

¶35

K.D.Baby v. Kochi International Airport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.D.Baby v. Kochi International Airport Authority

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

Pradeep Goel Vs v.M.Hassan

P.Sunilkumar Vs Nechikattu Devaki

Manhapra Lakshmikutty Amma Vs Kader

Puthen Purayil Nadeer through Vs P.M.Abdulla

Varghese Vs Sheeja Varghese

John J.Illickan Vs Sheela Philip