Dismissed

Joseph Tajet v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Dec 2019WP(C)/2812/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed writ petitions challenging the shift from smart cards to FASTag for reimbursable free passes at a toll plaza. The Court held that the State Government must now reimburse users directly after they pay the fee, rather than paying the operator directly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are dismissed as the State Government must reimburse the petitioners directly after they pay the user fee.

Joseph Tajet Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.2812 OF 2019(B)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

1 JOSEPH TAJET AGED 49 YEARS

¶7

S/O. LATE JOSE, ADVOCATE, THATTIL NADAKKALAN HOUSE P.O. THALORE, THRISSUR-680 306

¶8

2 C.R.JOSE AGED 59 YEARS

¶9

S/O. RAPPAI, CHIRAMMEL HOUSE, KURACHIRA P.O., OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680006

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.M.L.REMYA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶13

2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SOUTH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶14

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,AYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003

¶15

4 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PLOT G.5. & 6 SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-150007

¶16

5 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (TECH) NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PLOT G.5. AND 6 SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-150007

¶17

6 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NO.8/11/87 ARUMUGHAN COLONY,CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD-687 007

¶18

7 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI-110001

¶19

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶20

¶21

8 NATIONAL PAYMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGISTERED OFFICE, 1001 A,10TH FLOOR, THE CAPITAL, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI - 400051

¶22

9 GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY SITE OFFICE: TOLL PLAZA CONTROL BUILDING, NH-47 (NEW NO.544) PROJECT, PALIAKKARA, NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE, CHITTISSERY (P.O),KERALA-680 301

¶23

R1-3 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY R4-6 BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI, CGC R4-6 BY ADV. SHRI.PRADEEP BABU P.D. R4, R6 BY M/S.M.V.KINI AND CO., SC, NHAI R7 BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI R9 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH R9 BY ADV.SRI.THOMAS.P.KURUVILLA

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.12.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).32181/2019(W), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶26

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶30

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶31

WP(C).No.32181 OF 2019(W)

¶32

PETITIONER:

¶33

K.S.SANOJKUMAR AGED 43 YEARS S/O. K.K SANKARAN, RESIDING AT 8/170, KOPPADAN HOUSE, PALAZHI (P.O) NENMANIKKARA, THRISSUR 680 301.

¶34

BY ADVS. SRI.P.T.DINESH SRI.RANJITH XAVIER

¶35

RESPONDENTS:

¶36

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, 1-PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶37

2 THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, G5 AND 6, SECTOR-10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI 110 075.

¶38

3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NO. 8/11/87 ARUMUGHAN COLONY, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD 687 007.

¶39

4 THE NATIONAL PAYMENTS CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL PAYMENTS CORPORATION OF INDIA, 1001A, B WING, 10TH FLOOR, THE CAPITAL, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI 400 051.

¶40

5 THE INDIAN HIGHWAYS MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN HIGHWAYS MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, SECOND FLOOR, MTNL BUILDING, SECTOR-19, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI 110 075.

¶41

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶42

¶43

6 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶44

7 THE GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MCH NO. 555, ARORA COLONY, ROAD NO. 3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 034.

¶45

8 THE BRANCH -IN-CHARGE, GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, TOLL PLAZA CONTROL BUILDING, NH 544 PROJECT, PALIAKKARA, CHITTISSERY (P.O), THRISSUR 680 301.

¶46

R1 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

¶47

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.12.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2812/2019(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶48

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶49

¶50

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶51

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶52

Dated 19^th December, 2019.

¶53

J U D G M E N T

¶54

The petitioners in these writ petitions seek virtually the same relief and they are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. The parties and exhibits are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.2812 of 2019.

¶55

2. The petitioners are persons residing within 10 kilometers radius of Paliyakkara Toll Plaza operated by the ninth respondent on NH-47 in the State in terms of a Build Operate and Transfer arrangement entered into by them with the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for construction and maintenance of a section of the National Highway covering the toll plaza. As per the said arrangement, the ninth respondent is entitled to collect user fee as prescribed by the Government of India for the vehicles passing through the Toll Plaza. When the ninth respondent started collecting the user fee from 05.12.2011 after constructing the said section of the

¶56

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶57

¶58

Highway, the people in the locality raised objections to the collection of user fee on the ground that the same would be oppressive for them as they have to pass through the toll plaza multiple times a day. The State Government intervened in the matter and issued Ext.P3 order on 18.2.2012, in terms of which the State Government undertook to reimburse the ninth respondent the user fee payable in respect of car/van/jeep owned by persons residing within 10 kilometers radius of the Toll Plaza. In the light of Ext.P3, monthly passes were being issued by the ninth respondent in the form of smart cards to the beneficiaries of Ext.P3 order, so as to enable them to pass through the toll plaza without paying the user fee and the beneficiaries of the said order are accordingly passing through the toll plaza without payment of user fee for the last almost 8 years.

¶59

3 . During 2017, in order to remove the bottlenecks associated with the manual collection of user fee and ensure seamless movement of traffic, the Government of India has decided to introduce Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) across National Highways in the country and to install, maintain and operate a uniform, inter-operable hybrid ETC system on all lanes of toll plazas in the country. In order to enable electronic toll collection, the users have to fix in the windscreen of their vehicle a device called FASTag for making payment of user fee directly from the prepaid or savings account linked to it. Monthly passes, wherever applicable, were being issued on multiple modes of

¶60

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶61

¶62

payment including cash and FASTag. It was noticed in course of time that in reality , majority of monthly passes are being issued and processed through cash lanes leading to severe congestion at the toll plazas. In the circumstances, in order to ensure effective decongestion at the toll plazas, it has been decided that all monthly passes, wherever applicable, shall be issued only through FASTag with effect from 01.04.2018 and it is being implemented throughout the country. In so far as the State Government has agreed to reimburse the user fee payable by persons residing in 10 kilometers radius of Paliyakkara Toll Plaza, the Project Director of NHAI has written Ext.P7 letter requesting the State Government to work out the modality of payment for converting the reimbursable free passes issued in terms of Ext.P3 order to FASTag transaction. The State Government has not taken any decision on Ext.P7 request.

¶63

4 . In the meanwhile, when steps have been taken by the ninth respondent to convert all lanes at the toll plaza as FASTag lanes, the first petitioner preferred Ext.P9 representation requesting the State Government to take necessary steps to enable him to enjoy the privilege extended in terms of Ext.P3 order, for, if alternative arrangements are not made by the Government for reimbursing the user fee payable by the beneficiaries of Ext.P3, they will be constrained to pay user fee for passing through the Toll Plaza, once all the lanes are converted as FASTag lanes. Government has not taken

¶64

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶65

¶66

any decision on Ext.P9 representation. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this court, and in terms of Ext.P16 judgment, this court directed the Government to take a decision on Ext.P9 representation. Ext.P17 is the decision taken by the Government on Ext.P9 representation thereafter. In terms of Ext.P17, the Government rejected Ext.P9 representation holding that the Government would continue to reimburse the user fee payable by the beneficiaries of Ext.P3 order and it is for the NHAI to redress the grievance voiced by the first petitioner.

¶67

5 . The case set out by the petitioners in the writ petition, in essence, is that in the light of Ext.P3 order of the State Government, the NHAI and the ninth respondent have to either continue the present arrangement so as to enable the petitioners and others to enjoy the benefits covered by Ext.P3 or introduce a FASTag specially for the beneficiaries of Ext.P3 order to pass through the Paliyakkara toll plaza without payment of user fee. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.32181 of 2019 has also a case that the conduct of the respondents concerned in introducing FASTag on all lines without amending Rule 6(3) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates And Collection) Rules, 2008, in terms of which payment of user fee is permissible by means of cash, smart card etc. as well, is illegal. The petitioners, therefore seek appropriate reliefs for the said purpose in the writ petitions.

¶68

A statement has been filed by the NHAI in W.P.(C)

¶69

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶70

¶71

No.2812 of 2019. The stand taken by the NHAI in the statement is that the ninth respondent has issued in the light of Ext.P3 order about 43000 passes to persons residing within 10 kilometer radius of the toll plaza; that most of the vehicles covered by the said passes are commuting on daily basis through the toll plaza and the said vehicles are creating more queue at the toll plaza. It is also the stand of the NHAI that the present situation at Paliyakkara toll plaza demands immediate conversion of the free passes covered by Ext.P3 order to FASTag for effective decongestion of the traffic at the toll plaza. It is also the stand of the NHAI that it has no control over FASTag back end operations such as payments, permissions, transactions etc and the same are controlled by the National Payment Corporation of India and the Indian Highways Management Company Ltd. It is also the stand of the NHAI that in the light of the developments after Ext.P3 order, the State Government was apprised of the situation and requested to make alternative payment modality for persons covered by Ext.P3 order.

¶72

A statement has been filed by the ninth respondent. The stand taken by the ninth respondent in the statement is that in the light of the policy decisions by the Central Government, the existing lanes at the toll plaza are to be converted as FASTag lanes and monthly

¶73

passes can be issued only on FASTag. It is also the stand of the ninth respondent that if the State Government requires to stick to the stand

¶74

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶75

¶76

taken in Ext.P3 order, it is for them to make alternative arrangement for payment of the user fee payable by persons covered by Ext.P3 order. It is further stated by the ninth respondent that the monthly charges payable by persons covered by Ext.P3 is only Rs.150/- and the State Government has hitherto reimbursed only a miniscule portion of the fee payable by the beneficiaries of Ext.P3 order. It is stated that out of the claim of Rs.107.43 crores hitherto made, the State Government has reimbursed only Rs.3.59 crores upto September 2012.

¶77

8 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the NHAI, the learned Central Government Counsel, the learned Senior Counsel for the ninth respondent as also the learned State Attorney.

¶78

9 . The fact that it is in terms of the policy decision taken by the Government of India that electronic toll collection mode is being implemented across the country in order to ensure seamless movement of traffic through toll plazas is not in dispute. The decision to issue monthly passes exclusively through FASTag is one taken in implementation of the said policy decision of the Central Government to ensure effective decongestion at the toll plazas. The policy decision of the Central Government is not under challenge. As noted, the case set out by the petitioners in the writ petitions is that in the light of Ext.P3 order of the State Government, the NHAI and the ninth respondent have to either continue the present arrangement, or

¶79

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶80

¶81

introduce a FASTag specially for them to pass through the Paliyakkara toll plaza without payment of user fee. In the absence of any challenge in the writ petitions against the policy decision of the Central Government referred to above, the direction sought by the petitioners to the respondents concerned to continue the existing arrangements so as to enable them to pass through the toll plaza cannot be granted. That too, for the reason that they may not otherwise be entitled to avail the benefit of the privilege extended to them by the State Government in terms of Ext.P3 order. Similarly, in the absence of any challenge in the writ petitions against the policy decision of the Central Government referred to above, the direction sought by the petitioners to the respondents concerned to introduce a FASTag specially for them to pass through the Paliyakkara toll plaza without payment of user fee cannot also be granted, especially when the petitioners do not have a right to claim such a relief and when they do not have a case in the writ petitions that it is possible to introduce a FASTag specially for them. It is beyond dispute that the policy decision of the Central Government is one taken in the larger public interest. It is trite that when executive authorities take decisions in larger public interest, rights of individuals have to give way and the inconvenience if any, caused to the individuals in the context of such decisions cannot be taken note of by courts while examining the correctness of the decision, or justifiability of the modalities of its implementation.

¶82

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶83

¶84

10. True, petitioners are enjoying a privilege under Ext.P3 order. In a case of this nature, it is for the State Government to make alternative arrangements to extend the privilege to the petitioners and others, if at all the Government chooses to continue the same. As noted, though the NHAI has brought the issue to the notice of the State Government and requested the State Government to work out the modality of payment with the National Payment Corporation of India and the Indian Highways Management Company Ltd., the State Government has not taken any action till date as requested for by the NHAI. Instead, the State Government has rejected the similar request made by the first petitioner in terms of Ext.P17 order. In other words, the State Government does not want to stand in the way of the NHAI converting all lanes of the toll plazas to FASTag lanes and issuing monthly passes exclusively through FASTag. This stand of the State Government has been informed at the time of hearing by the State Attorney also. When a specific question was put to the State Attorney as to how the State Government is proposing to honour the commitment made in terms of Ext.P3 order, it was submitted by the learned State Attorney that the beneficiaries can claim reimbursement from the State Government directly. As noted, what is extended by the State Government to persons residing within 10 km radius from the toll plaza is only a privilege and the State Government can therefore decide the modality of extending the privilege. It is also within the

¶85

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶86

¶87

powers of the State Government to change the modality, if circumstances compel the State Government to do so. The stand taken by the State that the petitioners and other similarly placed persons can claim reimbursement of the user fee from the State Government is not acceptable to the petitioners. Since the petitioners have no right to pass through the toll plaza without payment of user fee, the only option left to them for availing the benefit, according to me, is to claim reimbursement of the user fee from the State Government.

¶88

11. There is no substance in the contention taken by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.32181 of 2019, based on Rule 6(3) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates And Collection) Rules, 2008 also. Rule 6(3) reads thus :

¶89

“6. Collection of fee.-

¶90

x x x x x x

¶91

x x x x x x x

¶92

(3) The fee collected under these rules shall be paid either in cash or through smart card [or through FASTag] or on board unit (transponder) or any other like device:

¶93

Provided that no additional charges shall be realised for making the payment of fee by use of a smart card or on board unit (transponder) or any other such device:

¶94

Provided further that user of the vehicle not fitted with “FASTag” entering into “FASTag lane” of the [fee plazas] shall pay a fee equivalent to two times of the fee applicable to that category of vehicles as per subrule (2) of rule 4.”

¶95

True, in terms of the said Rule, payment of user fee is permissible by

¶96

means of cash, smart card etc. as well. But, I do not think that the

¶97

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶98

¶99

said Rule is of any help to the petitioner, as the same is intended for enabling payment of user fee and not for claiming exemption from payment of user fee. Even otherwise, I do not think that the said Rule would be an impediment for the Central Government or the NHAI in taking a policy decision to issue monthly passes exclusively through FASTag.

¶100

12. Above all, it is seen that National Highways are now being constructed and operated on build operate and transfer arrangements without spending money from the exchequer and it is to enable the concessionaire to recover the investments made that he is permitt ed to collect user fee, that too, at the rate prescribed by the Central Government. It is also seen that the monthly user fee payable by persons like the petitioners who have the financial background to own vehicles is only a paltry sum of Rs.150/- for their multiple movements in a month through the toll plaza. The stand of the petitioners that they cannot spare a meagre sum of Rs.150/- per month towards the nation building process cannot be appreciated. Be that as it may. The State Government has taken upon itself the onerous task of reimbursing the user fee payable by the petitioners and others to the ninth respondent and it has come out that the liability incurred by the State Government in this regard during the last 8 years is more than hundred crores. As noted, even now, the State Government is prepared to extend the privilege covered by Ext.P3 and

¶101

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶102

¶103

prepared to reimburse the user fee payable by the petitioners and others directly to t he ninth respondent. The only change brought about is that the petitioners have to pay now user fee and claim reimbursement from the Government. An approach to this court by the petitioners taking the stand that the said course is not acceptable to them and that the ninth respondent, therefore, has either to continue the present arrangement or introduce a FASTag specially for them to pass through the toll plaza without payment of user fee cannot be appreciated at all.

¶104

The writ petitions, in the circumstances, are without substance and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶110

¶111

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2812/2019

¶112

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶113

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF T CONCESSION AGREE	HE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF MENT DATED 27.3.2006
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF T DATED 14.12.2007	HE STATE SUPPORT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 18.2.2012 RESPONDENT	GO (MS) NO.23/2012/PWD ISSUED BY THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 11.4.2018 ISSUED	COMMUNICATION DATED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE MANAGEMENT OF MO POLICY NO.17.5.7	NHAI/POLICY GUIDELINES/ NTHLY PASSERS/2018 AS PER 8 DATED 16.2.2018
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 28.3.2018 ISSUED	COMMUNICATION DATED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE 18.4.2018 ISSUED	COMMUNICATION DATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE 2.6.2018 ISSUED	REPRESENTATION DATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE 2.6.2018 TO THE	REPRESENTATION DATED 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE 2.6.2018 TO THE	REPRESENTATION DATED MINSTER PWD
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE TIMES OF INDIA D KOTTAYAM/ ALAPPU	NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN ATED 14.6.2018 PALAKKAD/ ZHA EDITION
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE 14.6.2018 TO THE	REPRESENTATION DATED 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE 14.6.2018 TO THE	REPRESENTATION DATED 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE 14.6.2018 TO THE	REPRESENTATION DATED 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE 16.6.2018 TO THE	REPRESENTATION DATED 8TH RESPONDENT

¶114

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶115

¶116

EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.7.2018 IN W.P(C) NO.21534/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO 6/2019/PWD DATED 3.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.1.2019 IN COC NO.1802/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18-09-2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT WITH STATEMENT DETAILS NUMBER OF FREE PASS RENEWED.
EXHIBIT P20	TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTE DATED 26-09-2019 OF IRINGALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P21	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.9 DATED 24- 09-2019 OF PARALAM PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P22	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 18-09- 2019 ALAGAPPA NAGAR PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P23	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 20-09- 2019 OF THE THRISSUR CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P24	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.I DATED 30- 09-2019 OF NENMANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶117

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶118

¶119

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32181/2019

¶120

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶121

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT
	ENTERED BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT NHA1 AND THE 7TH RESPONDENT GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ON 27-03- 2006
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE STATE SUPPORT AGREEMENT DATED 14-12-2007 BY THE STATE OF KERALA, NHA1 AND THE 7TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE S.O 1424(E) DATED 20-06- 2011 BY THE DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 23/2012/PWD DATED 18-02-2012 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURE-1 BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS (H) DEPARTMNENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 16-02- 2018 BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR/ADMN)-1 NHAI
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. NHA1/11013/FASTAG/IT/2018/89 DATED 11-04- 2018 BY THE CGM (IT AND HO) OF NHA1
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNCIATION NO. NHA1/PD/PALAKKAD/NH-47/BOT/KL-01/TOLL/424 DATED 18-04-2018 ISSUED BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE MARUTI RITZ CAR HAVING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL-45-G-4302
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REIMBURSABLE SMART CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S CAR NO. KL-45-G- 4302 BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE NOTICE EXHIBITED AT PALIYEKKARA FEE PLAZA.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE NEWS APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAM DAILY,

¶122

W.P.(C) Nos.2812 & 32181 of 2019

¶123

¶124

	THRISSUR EDITION	DATED 09-11-2019.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEARED IN MALA THRISSUR EDITION	RELEVANT PART OF THE NEWS YALA MANORAMA DAILY, DATED 10-11-2019.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 03-01-2019 TO GOVERNMENT, P GOVERNMENT OF KE	GO(RT) NO. 6/2019/PWD BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY UBLIC WORKS (H) DEPARTMENT, RALA.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE 2019 BY THE THRI	RESOLUTION DATED 20-09- SSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P14 A	TRUE COPY OF THE 2019 BY THE IRIN	RESOLUTION DATED 26-09- JALAKKUDA MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P14 B	TRUE COPY OF THE ALAGAPPANAGAR GR 2019.	RESOLUTION PASSED BY AMA PANCHAYAT ON 18-09-
EXHIBIT P14 C	TRUE COPY OF THE PARALAM GRAMA PA	RESOLUTION PASSED BY NCHAYAT ON 24-09-2019.
EXHIBIT P14 D	TRUE COPY OF THE CHERPU GRAMA PAN	RESOLUTION PASSED BY CHAYAT ON 24-09-2019.
EXHIBIT P14 E	TRUE COPY OF THE VARANTHARAPILLY 2019.	RESOLUTION PASSED BY GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 27-09-
EXHIBIT P14 F	TRUE COPY OF THE NENMANIKKARA GRA	RESOLUTION PASSED BY MA PANCHAYAT ON 30-09-2019.

¶125

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Joseph Tajet v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Tajet 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jose Vs Dr. Renu Raj

Kunhiyan, Vs State of Kerala

N.Muhammed @ Kunjippa, Vs State of Kerala

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs Additional District Magistrate

Gopakumar Vs the State of Kerala

Sheeja.E Vs the State of Kerala