Dismissed

Menma Cafe Unit v. Medical College Hospital Development Society

Kerala HC12 Jan 2021WP(C)/20628/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Kudumbasree Unit, challenged an order terminating its contract to run a Milma Booth at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The Court found the contract expired and the termination was rightful due to unsatisfactory performance, payment defaults, and unauthorized construction, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. Respondents are directed to grant reasonable time for the petitioner to vacate the premises.

Menma Cafe Unit Vs Medical College Hospital… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/22TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.20628 OF 2020(C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MENMA CAFE UNIT, WARD NO.12, ARPOOKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

BY ADV. SHRI.K.B.GANGESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 008, REP. SECRETARY-SUPERINTENDANT, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM.

¶11

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 002, (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHAIRMAN OF MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY).

¶12

3 SUPERINTENDANT, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 008, (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY)

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI KODUVATH R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.I.GEORGEKUTTY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.20628/2020

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2021

¶19

The writ petitioner is a 'Kudumbasree Unit'. The petitioner was given contract for running a Milma Booth in the Medical College premises at Kottayam. The period of contract was from 03.05.2019 to 02.05.2020 as evidenced by Ext.P1 agreement.

¶20

The petitioner submits that by Ext.P2 communication, the petitioner was required to stop the functioning of Milma Booth and pay an amount of `1,65,000/-, the arrears payable to the Medical College Hospital Development Society. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 in this writ petition.

¶21

The 3^rd respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 3^rd respondent stated that the functioning of the Milma Booth by the petitioner was not satisfactory. The petitioner

¶22

WP(C)No.20628/2020

¶23

¶24

committed default in payment. Further more, the petitioner resorted to unauthorised construction in the hospital premises. Therefore, the Hospital Development Society in its Executive Committee held on 09.09.2020 decided to remove the petitioner and entrusted running of Milma Booth to the District Mission of Kudumbasree. It was also decided in the meeting that all further agreements need to be made

¶25

only with the District Mission. This is discernible from Ext.R1(a).

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶27

that the default in payment of rent is only of 1½ months and the petitioner can remit the entire arrears to respondents 1 to 3. As regards the unauthorised construction, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner took up the Milma Booth, there was already a plastic roof erected in front for the benefits of the customers, who visit the Milma Booth and the petitioner has only modified the

¶28

¶29

WP(C)No.20628/2020

¶30

said temporary structure. The petitioner is willing to remove that structure if it is warranted.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶32

that there is no other complaints as regards the running of Milma Booth by the petitioner. Contracts given by the Hospital Development Society to all others, are permitted to continue. Only the agreement with the petitioner is sought to be terminated. The learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that the action is mal fide and is intended to entrust

¶33

the running of the booth to persons of choice of the respondents 1 to 3. This cannot permitted.

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3, and the learned Government Pleader appearing for District Mission Co-ordinator, Kudumbasree.

¶35

From Ext.R1(e), it is discernible that the running of Milma Booth by the petitioner was not satisfactory to the

¶36

¶37

¶38

Hospital Development Society. The decision of

¶39

respondents 1 to 3 is to entrust the Milma Booth to the District Mission. It is pertinent to note that in Ext.R1(a), the Hospital Development Society has taken a decision not only in respect of the petitioner but in respect of all other contracts and it has been decided that all agreements hereafter should be with the District Mission. So this Court

¶40

finds that there is no mal fide intention in the decision of Ext.R1(e).

¶41

The petitioner was running the Milma Booth pursuant to an agreement. The period of agreement initially fixed was 02.05.2020 which stands expired. The petitioner has no legal right to claim that the petitioner should be granted extension and permitted to continue.

¶42

In the circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with Ext.P2 decision of the Hospital Development Society. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly

¶43

¶44

¶45

dismissed. Respondents 1 to 3 shall grant reasonable time

¶46

for the petitioner to vacate the premises peacefully.

¶47

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE 03.05	COP .2019.	Y	OF	AGREEMENT	DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE ISSUE	COPY D BY 1	OF ST	ORD RESPO	ER DATED 29. NDENT.	09.2020
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE ARPOO 30.09	COPY KKARA .2020.	OF G	RES RAMA	OLUTION NO.10 PANCHAYATH	(1) OF DATED
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE THE DATED	COPY PETITI NIL.	OF ONE	THE R TO	LETTER PREFER THE 3RD RES	RED BY PONDENT

¶54

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶55

EXHIBIT R1(a)	THE TRUE DISTRICT SECRETARY	COP MISSI DATED	Y ON 04	OF CO .07	THE LETTER -ORDINATOR TO .2018.	FROM THE
EXHIBIT R1(b)	THE TRUE PETITIONE	COP R TO	Y THE	OF DI	THE LETTER STRICT MISSION	FROM CO-
	ORDINATOR READABLE	DA COPY	TED		23.01.2019	WITH
EXHIBIT R1(c)	THE TRUE RESPONDEN CO-ORDINA EADABLE C	COPY T FRO TOR OPY.	OF M DAT	THE THE ED	LETTER TO THE DISTRICT MIS 30.01.2019 W	3RD SION ITHR
EXHIBIT R1(d)	THE TRUE	COPY	OF	TH	E NOTICE FROM	THE
	3RD RESPO ORDINATOR	NDENT DATED	TO 25	DI .06	STRICT MISSION .2020.	CO-
EXHIBIT R1(e)	THE TRUE EXECUTIVE DATED 09.	COPY COMM 09.202	OF ITT 0.	TH EE	E MINUTES OF OF 1ST RESPON	THE DENT

Menma Cafe Unit v. Medical College Hospital Development Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Menma Cafe Unit v. Medical College Hospital Development Society

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

Biju Augustine Vs Kerala Water Authority

Konari Hamza Koya Vs the District Collector Malappuram

Kingdom Protection Services Private Limited Vs the Registrar, Cochin University of Science and Technology

L.Satheek Vs the Chief Engineer

M/S. Irikkur Construction Company Vs Superintending Engineer

Leashar Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited