Allowed

Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. M.N.Sugunan

Kerala HC24 Jan 2020WA/764/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bench allowed writ appeals filed by Cochin International Airport Ltd. against a Single Judge's direction to earmark 20% of new taxi passes for old airport drivers. The court held the management's scheme, which prioritized evictees, was not arbitrary and vacated the judicial directive to interfere with the scheme's implementation.

What did the court decide?

Vacated the Single Judge's direction earmarking 20% of taxi permits for old airport drivers; ordered the management to adhere to the existing scheme.

Cochin International Airport Ltd. Vs M.N.Sugunan — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.764 OF 2013

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 2082/2008 DATED 09-10-2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/2nd RESPONDENT:

¶10

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD., KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 111, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4 IN WPC & ADDL. RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 IMPLEADED:

¶13

1 M.N.SUGUNAN S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT 19/1655,MEPPARATHU PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 6.

¶14

2 JOSEPH K.I SO.IGNATIOUS AGED 60 YEARS RESIDING AT KAITHVELIL MANASSERI, KANNAMALI, KOCHI - 682 008

¶15

3 K.THANKAPPAN SO.KESAVAN RESIDING AT THUNDIPARAMBIL CHULLIKKAL, KOCHI - 5

¶16

4 B.K.SUKUMARAN SO.KRISHNAN RESIDING AT BALIAL HOUSE KONNAM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 6.

¶17

5 LODSON K.A. S/O.ANTHAPPAN PALLURUTHY KOCHI 6.

¶18

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶19

-2-

¶20

6 SUDHARMAN, S/O.BHARATHAN AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATTAMMAL HOUSE, CHULLIKKAL, COCHIN - 5.

¶21

7 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHENNAI - 600 027.

¶22

8 THE SENIOR AERODROME OFFICER COCHIN CIVIL ENCLAVE, NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY,WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI - 682 003.

¶23

9 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,CIVIL AVIATIONS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶24

10 COCHIN INTERNATIONAL TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO. E/998, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.DINESH KUMAR C.

¶25

11 PAUL JACOB, AREECKAL MEKKADAMBU P.O - 682 316.

¶26

12 ELDHO YOHANNAN PALLIKKARAN NAYATHODE P.O. 683 572.

¶27

13 B.L.CLEETUS SO.LAZER BAVAKKADU HOUSE PALLURUTHY COCHIN - 6.

¶28

R1-2, R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU R3 BY ADV. SRI.LIJOY P.VARGHESE R10 BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI R10 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2020, ALONG WITH W.A. NOS. 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶31

-3-

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶35

¶36

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶37

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶38

WA.No.782 OF 2013

¶39

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 6219/2012 DATED 09-10-2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶40

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶41

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD., KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 111, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶42

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶43

RESPONDENTS/PETITONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:

¶44

1 K M MOHANAN PILLAI S/O.KESAVAN PILLAI, 12/523, MARAMON VEETTIL,PANDIKUDY, KOCHI - 2.

¶45

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL AVIATIONS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶46

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2020, ALONG WITH W.A. NOS. 764, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶48

-4-

¶49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶50

PRESENT

¶51

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶52

¶53

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶54

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶55

WA.No.795 OF 2013

¶56

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 31708/2009 DATED 09-10-2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶57

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶58

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. KOCHI AIRPORT P O, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN-683 111, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶59

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶60

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 3:

¶61

1 XAVIER V.J. AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, 5/326,VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR P O, ERNAKULAM-34

¶62

2 AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA REP BY ITS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHENNAI-600 027.

¶63

3 THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR) THE COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, KOCHI AIRPORT P.O, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN-683 111.

¶64

R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH (B/O) R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJU (B/O)

¶65

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2020, W.A. NOS. 764, 782, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶66

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶67

-5-

¶68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶69

PRESENT

¶70

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶71

¶72

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶73

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶74

WA.No.810 OF 2013

¶75

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 24777/2009 DATED 09-10-2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶76

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶77

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 111, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶78

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶79

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4:

¶80

1 K.N.SANADHANAN S/O. NARAYANAN, KATTUMPURATHU HOUSE, THEVARA COLONY, PERUMANOOR, ERNAKULAM-682 015.

¶81

2 AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHENNAI-600 027.

¶82

3 MANAGING DIRECTOR COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD., NEDUMBASSERY, KOCHI-683 111.

¶83

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶84

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2020, W.A.NOS. 764, 782, 795, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶85

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶86

-6-

¶87

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶88

PRESENT

¶89

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶90

¶91

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶92

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶93

WA.No.831 OF 2013

¶94

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 18984/2009 DATED 09-10-2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶95

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶96

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.

¶97

KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT683 111, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶98

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶99

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4 IN WPC & ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.5 IMPLEADED:

¶100

1 T.K. SHASUDHEERAN AGED 46 YEARS S/O. KOYA, RESIDING AT THANATHPARAMBIL HOUSE, ILLATHUNAGAR, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.

¶101

2 P.S.NANDHANAN AGED 62 YEARS RESIDING AT PADINJARENIKATHIL HOUSE,PAI ROAD, PERUMBADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.

¶102

3 P.K.SAHADEVAN AGED 61 YEARS

¶103

RESIDING AT CHAPRAYIL HOUSE, CMC WARD-X, CHERTHALA688 524.

¶104

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶105

-7-

¶106

4 M.T.TOMY AGED 58 YEARS RESIDING AT MASHNASSERY HOUSE, KARIKKAMURI ROAD, ERNAKULAM-16.

¶107

5 V.P.VIJAYAN AGED 58 YEARS RESIDING AT VELANGATTU HOUSE, THIRUNELLUR, CHERTHALA688 524.

¶108

6 M.S.PRAKASHAN AGED 41 YEARS RESIDING AT MANKAMADAM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.

¶109

7 R.SADANANDAN, AGED 60 YEARS, P.D.ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.

¶110

8 AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHENNAI-600 027.

¶111

9 THE SENIOR AERODROME OFFICER COCHIN CIVIL ENCLAVE, NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 003.

¶112

10 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶113

11 B.L.CLEETUS S/O. LAZER, BAVAKKADU HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.

¶114

R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU

¶115

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2020, ALONG WITH W.A. NOS. 764, 782, 795, 810, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶116

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶117

-8-

¶118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶119

PRESENT

¶120

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶121

¶122

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶123

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶124

WA.No.845 OF 2013(L)

¶125

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 9517/2010 DATED 09-10-2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶126

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶127

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD KOCHI AIRPORT P.O, NEDUMBASSERY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 683 111,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY LTD)

¶128

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶129

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4:

¶130

1 SYED MUHAMMED KALLAMPATTU HOUSE,MARAVANTHURUTH,VAIKOM 686 608.

¶131

2 AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,CHENNAI 600 027.

¶132

3 THE SENIOR AERODROME OFFICER COCHIN CIVIL ENCLAVE,NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY,WILLINGTON ISLAND,KOCHI 682 003.

¶133

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶134

R4 BY SRI. T. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVT. PLEADER

¶135

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2020, ALONG WITH WA.NOS. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶136

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶137

-9-

¶138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶139

PRESENT

¶140

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶141

¶142

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶143

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶144

WA.No.846 OF 2013

¶145

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 15778/2010 DATED 09-10-2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶146

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶147

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.

¶148

KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., NEDUMBASSERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICTPIN-683 111, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

BY ADVS.

SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS

SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4:

¶153

1 B ABOO

¶154

S/O.VAVA, PADINJARE VYPEL, KARIPADAM, THALAYOLAPARAMBU,VAIKOM-686 605.

¶155

2 E.J.JOSEPH H.NO.IV/898, ELENJIKKAL HOUSE, THRIKKAKARAP.O., KOLLAMKKUDIMUGHAL-682 016.

¶156

3 AIR PORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHENNAI-600 027.

¶157

4 THE SENIOR AERODROME OFFICER COCHIN CIVIL ENCLAVE, NATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 003.

¶158

5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 001.

¶159

R5 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVT. PLEADER

¶160

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2020, ALONG WITH WA. NOS. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶161

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶162

-10-

¶163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶164

PRESENT

¶165

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶166

¶167

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶168

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶169

WA.No.889 OF 2013

¶170

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 4515/2010 DATED 09-10-2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶171

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶172

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

¶173

KOCHI AIRPORT P.O , NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-683 111, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶174

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶175

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4:

¶176

1 V P SOMAN

¶177

S/O. PRABHAKARAN, VADAKAKKAKATHU VEEDU, PALLURUTHY KONAM, KOCHI-682 006.

¶178

2 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHENNAI-600 027.

¶179

3 THE SENIOR AERODROME OFFICER COCHIN CIVIL ENCLAVE, NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 003.

¶180

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶181

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2020, ALONG WITH WA. NOS. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 905 & 906 OF 2013 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶182

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶183

-11-

¶184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶185

PRESENT

¶186

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶187

¶188

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶189

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶190

WA.No.905 OF 2013

¶191

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 27034/2009 DATED 09-10-2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶192

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶193

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.

¶194

KOCHI AIRPORT.P.O,NEDUMBASSERY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683 111,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶195

BY ADVS.

¶196

SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶197

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4 IN WPC:

¶198

1 P.N.HARIDAS

¶199

PUTHENPURAYIL,KARUVELIPADY,COCHIN-5,NOW RESIDING AT PATTAYIL HOUSE,PUNNAALAKKAD ROAD,CHANGAMPUZHA LANE,CHEMPAKKARA.P.O,MARADU-682 304.

¶200

2 P.V.CHELLAPPAN PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE,THYKOODAM,VYTTILA,KOCHI-19.

¶201

3 AIR PORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,CHENNAI-600 027.

¶202

4 THE SENIOR AERODROME OFFICER COCHIN CIVIL ENCLAVE,NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY,WILLINGDON ISLAND,KOCHI-682 003.

¶203

5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶204

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2020, ALONG WITH WA. NOS. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889 & 906 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶205

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶206

-12-

¶207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶208

PRESENT

¶209

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶210

¶211

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶212

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶213

WA.No.906 OF 2013

¶214

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 18713/2009 DATED 09-10-2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶215

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶216

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.

¶217

KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 111, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶218

BY ADVS.

¶219

SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶220

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4 IN WPC:

¶221

1 P.S.ABDUL SALAM

¶222

AGED 54 YEARS

¶223

S/O.SYED MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT PALACKAL HOUSE, MARAVANTHURUTHU PO, VAIKOM. 686 608.

¶224

2 BABY P.C. AGED 47 YEARS

¶225

S/O. JACOB, RESIDING AT PLACKIYIL HOUSE, IRUMPANAM, PO ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 309.

¶226

3 AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CHENNAI - 600 027.

¶227

4 THE SENIOR AERODROME OFFICER COCHIN CIVIL ENCLAVE, NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI. 682 003.

¶228

5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶229

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2020, ALONG WITH WA. NOS. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶230

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶231

-13-

¶232

Dated this the 24^th day of January, 2020. JUDGMENT

¶233

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶234

These appeals are filed by one of the respondents in the writ petitions i.e., the Cochin International Airport Ltd., being aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned single Judge directing the Management of the appellant to consider the claim of the writ petitioners for the issuance of the taxi passes as and when new passes are issued at the Cochin International Air Port, Nedumbassery, by earmarking 20% out of the total number of new taxies to be introduced, and that the selection of persons for the issuance of taxi passes shall be made from among those writ petitioners who are fulfilling all the eligibility criteria fixed by the appellant, except the insistence for “A-pass”. Further, it was directed that persons holding “B-pass” who fulfil their eligibility criteria also should be included and preference in the matter of selection shall be given on the basis of age of eligible candidates. Accordingly, it was

¶235

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶236

-14-

¶237

directed that the Management of the appellant shall give due intimation to the writ petitioners calling for submission of required documents as and when new taxi passes are sanctioned at the Airport.

¶238

Fact remains, the challenge made by the writ petitioners against the order of the Managing Director of the appellant dated 07.07.2019 selecting 8 persons for the issuance of taxi passes were negatived by the learned single Judge and it was further observed that there is no impediment in the appellant issuing taxi passes to respondent No.11 in W.P.(C) No. 19685 of 2009, if he fulfills all the eligibility criteria.

¶239

The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 with the object of constructing, commissioning, operating, managing and maintaining an Airport of international standards. The State Government, has a shareholding of 33%. The appellant has acquired several stretches of land for the construction of the Airport and its allied activities. The Management has decided to provide taxi permits to the owners of acquired house

¶240

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶241

-15-

¶242

buildings, land and to others, while taxi permits are issued to ply from the Cochin International Airport. Three categories were formulated accordingly i.e., evictees of houses, evictees of land and others. The first preference was given to the evictees of houses, second preference to the evictees of land and third preference to 'others'. Accordingly, 284 passes were issued to ply taxies during the year 1999. Subsequently, the Board of Directors have decided on 26.12.2005 to issue 100 more passes to the taxi operators as per the criteria fixed above. Fact remains, the drivers of the old Cochin Airport have raised claims to ply taxies from the new Cochin International Airport. Apparently, on the basis of the observations made by this Court in one of the writ petitions, a claim is accrued to the taxi drivers who were operating the taxies in the old Cochin Airport.

¶243

The contention put forth by the appellant before

¶244

the learned single Judge was that preference is to be given to the evictees of houses and thereafter, the evictees of land and thereafter only the claim of the taxi drivers of the

¶245

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶246

-16-

¶247

erstwhile Cochin Airport can be taken into consideration, in the category of 'others'. It is pertinent to note, on the basis of the observations made by this Court in an earlier Original Petition, the Management has decided to issue 20 passes to taxi drivers who were operating in the old Cochin Airport, and from the pleadings and the documents produced by the rival parties, it is quite clear and evident that those 20 taxi passes were issued. Therefore, now the paramount contention advanced by the appellant, the Cochin International Airport Ltd., is that by virtue of the understanding entered into by and between the taxi drivers of the erstwhile Cochin Airport, taxi passes are already issued and they are not entitled to make any further claim, especially due to the fact that the management of the appellant has evolved a scheme to provide taxi passes and according to which a definite decision was taken to give preference to the house evictees, then land evictees and then 'others'. However, the learned single Judge has directed the management of the appellant to earmark 20% of the passes for the drivers of the erstwhile Cochin

¶248

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶249

-17-

¶250

Airport. Basic contention advanced is that since the management has formulated a scheme, all the parties knew that they are entitled to get preference in accordance with the modalities prescribed in the scheme alone, and the management is strictly implementing the issuance of the taxi permits in accordance with the scheme formulated. It is also pointed out that the drivers of the erstwhile Cochin Airport could not make any claim as of right, since the old Cochin Airport was under the administration and management of the Airport Authority and a new airport is operated by the appellant company and therefore, there is no manner of obligation or duty on the part of the management of the appellant to provide taxi passes to the drivers of the erstwhile Cochin Airport. Moreover, it is submitted that there is no right conferred on such drivers to insist the management of the appellant that they should be issued with passes and therefore, it is contended that when the facts and circumstances are remaining so, the learned single Judge was not right in issuing a direction to earmark 20% of the taxi permits to the taxi drivers of the

¶251

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶252

-18-

¶253

erstwhile Cochin Airport.

¶254

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that the learned single Judge has taken into account the sad plight of the taxi drivers of the old Cochin Airport and it was accordingly that the guidelines were issued earmarking 20% of the taxi permits to such drivers.

¶255

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri. Benny P Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶256

The sole question to be considered is whether any manner of interference is warranted to the judgment of the learned single Judge, so far as the direction to earmark 20% of the taxi permits to the taxi drivers of old Cochin Airport, is concerned. In our considered opinion, the management of the appellant company after evaluating the situation on the basis of the acquisitions made for the formation of the Cochin International Airport, the plight of the persons who have lost their houses and lands due to the

¶257

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶258

-19-

¶259

acquisition made for the construction of the Airport and its allied activities that the scheme was evolved. It was taking into account the entire pros and cons the scheme was formulated to provide preference to the house evictees, then to land evictees and then to others.

¶260

True, the taxi drivers of the erstwhile Cochin

¶261

Airport could have staked a claim in the slot of 'others' provided under the scheme by the management. The legal aspect to be considered is whether such a scheme evolved by the management was, in any manner, arbitrary or illegal justifying interference of the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the learned single Judge has categorically entered into a finding that the challenge made by the writ petitioners, i.e., the taxi drivers of the erstwhile Cochin Airport, against 8 taxi passes issued by the management to the house evictees who are given preference under the scheme, requires no manner of interference as there is no illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the Management. It was thereafter that the guidelines were issued by the learned single Judge

¶262

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶263

-20-

¶264

earmarking 20% of the total passes to the drivers of the old Cochin Airport. In our considered opinion, the scheme was formulated by the Management taking into account various criteria and the requirement of providing employment to the people who have lost their houses and lands and preference was given to them. Perhaps the order of preference was given to ensure financial and economic betterment of the families who have lost their house and lands and tide over the adverse situations. Of course, there is a third slot for 'others'; but the Management, having evaluated the entire factual scenario and other circumstances, found that the most eligible persons were house evictees and then land evictees and then only the slot of 'others' will come into play. In fact, the writ petitioners have not made out any case to arrive at a finding that the decision so arrived at by the Management to formulate the scheme was in any manner arbitrary or illegal. A writ court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution was not expected to sit over the decision or the wisdom of the management in the matter of formulation of the scheme.,

¶265

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶266

-21-

¶267

which was well versed in the subject matter. That apart, having found that there was no manner of interference required to the decision of the management to issue taxi passes to 8 persons who are the house evictees in accordance with the scheme, it was not appropriate to fix a guideline, which, in our view, amounts to modification of the scheme framed by the Management assimilating various factual circumstances and carrying out in depth studies. . That apart, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that now the taxi passes are not being issued very frequently and the taxi passes are issued only, whenever there is a slot available consequent to any vacancy occurred on account of the taxi passes already issued to various persons. It is also pointed out that, the management so far could not attain the aim of rehabilitating the house and land evictees.

¶268

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the scheme formulated by the Management could not be found to be arbitrary or illegal by the learned single Judge in order to

¶269

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶270

-22-

¶271

interfere with the same, and earmark 20% of the total availability of the passes to the drivers of erstwhile Cochin Airport. We are also of the view that issue ought to have been left to the decision and the wisdom of the management in order to avoid any complex and complicated situations.

¶272

In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to succeed in the appeal. Therefore, we vacate the direction issued by the learned single Judge earmarking 20% out of the total number of taxi permits, to be issued to the drivers of the erstwhile Cochin Airport. However, we make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the Management taking any appropriate decision to consider the case of the taxi drivers of the old Cochin Airport, and the preference to be given among “A-pass” and “B-pass” holders, which were maintained at the old Cochin Airport, a criteria formulated distinguishing self-driven taxies and chauffeur driven taxies. We are not making any opinion with respect to the same also.

¶273

Resultantly, all the writ appeals are allowed to the

¶274

W.A. Nos. 764, 782, 795, 810, 831, 845, 846, 889, 905 & 906 OF 2013

¶275

-23-

¶276

extent specified above, but with a direction to adhere to the stipulations in the scheme in respect to the entitlement of the passes to be issued.

¶277

sd/- S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶278

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶279

SHAJI P. CHALY,

¶280

Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. M.N.Sugunan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. M.N.Sugunan

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

P.J.Antony Vs Peter.D.F

P.J.Antony Vs the Addl. Thahasildar

Johny Thomas Vs the Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank

Cochin International Airport Ltd. Vs P.S.Abdul Salam

George Mathew Vs T.a.M.Pookkoya Thangal

Bhaskaran Vs the Authorised Officer