Partly allowed

K.C.Abdul Kareem v. Hussain

Kerala HC30 Mar 2021WP(C)/8889/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the Airport Director's order was illegal for bypassing a directive to constitute a committee. The court quashed the order, directing the Director to form a committee and hear parties within a month. A related petition challenging the same order was dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P8 order quashed; Airport Director directed to constitute a committee, serve notice, and resolve the dispute within a month. Second writ petition closed as infructuous.

K.C.Abdul Kareem Vs Hussain — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C).Nos.7820 & 8889 OF 2015(B) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1943 WP(C).No.7820 OF 2015(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KUNJUMOHAMMED.K.

¶8

AGED 58 YEARS PULASSERY HOUSE, P.O.CALICUT AIRPORT,KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, CALICUT AIRPORT CALICUT AIRPORT P.O., MALAPPURAM -673 647.

¶13

2 THE CALICUT AIRPORT TAXI DRIVERS CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,CALICUT AIRPORT P.O., MALAPPURAM - 673 647.

¶14

3 HUSSAIN S/O.KAMMU, AREEKKATTU HOUSE, 8.427, KANJIRAMPARAMA,CALICUT AIRPORT P.O., MALAPPURAM - 673 647.

¶15

4 ADDL R4, SRI.K.C.ABDUL KAREEM, S/O. ALAVI, LICENSEE TO OPERATE TAXI SERVICES IN CALICUT AIRPORT, JASNA MANZIL, NADUVAKKAD P.O, MAMPAD. MALAPPURAM-676 542

¶16

ADDL R4, IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09-07-2015 IN IA 4220/2015

¶17

R3 BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).8889/2015(I), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).Nos.7820 & 8889 OF 2015(B) 2

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶23

TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1943

¶24

WP(C).No.8889 OF 2015

¶25

PETITIONER:

¶26

K.C.ABDUL KAREEM S/O.ALAVI, LICENSEE TO OPERATE TAXI SERVICES IN CALICUT AIRPORT, JASNA MANZIL, NADUVAKKAD, PO MAMPAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 542.

¶27

BY ADVS.

¶28

SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI

¶29

RESPONDENTS:

¶30

1 HUSSAIN S/O.KAMMU, AREEKATTU HOUSE, 8/427, KANJIRAPARAMBA, CALICUT AIRPORT PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 647.

¶31

2 KUNJUMOHAMMED K. PULASSERY HOUSE PO, CALICUT AIRPORT KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM

¶32

3 THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR CALICUT AIRPORT, CALICUT AIRPORT PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 647.

¶33

4 THE CALICUT AIRPORT TAXI DRIVERS CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE

¶34

REP. BY ITS CONVENOR, CALICUT AIRPORT PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 647.

¶35

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).7820/2015(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

WP(C).Nos.7820 & 8889 OF 2015(B) 3

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Dated this the 30th day of March 2021

¶40

W.P.(C) No.8889/2015 is filed by the petitioner, a licensee of the prepaid taxi system operated in Calicut International Airport, challenging Exhibit P7 order dated 23.2.2015 passed by the Airport Director, Calicut Airport, in regard to the rights claimed by one Hussain, S/o.Kammu, Areekattu House, Malappuram District, staking a claim to operate taxi from the Calicut International Airport. The very same order dated 23.2.2015 is a subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.7820/2015 filed by an aggrieved person in a dispute

¶41

by and between Hussain i.e., the 1^st respondent in the other writ petition and 3^rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.7820/2015.

¶42

In W.P.(C) No.7820/2015, the petitioner therein i.e.,

¶43

Kunjumohammed.K., has a contention that consequent to the judgment viz., Exhibit P2 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.30334/2014 dated 15.12.2014, the person named Hussain has secured certain rights to operate taxi. When the petitioner therein i.e.,Kunjumohammed.K., found that Hussain has secured orders from this Court in Exhibit P2 judgment to operate taxi of his own whereas he was a driver appointed by Kunjumohammed to operate his taxi, a review petition was filed in

¶44

WP(C).Nos.7820 & 8889 OF 2015(B) 4

¶45

the aforesaid judgment and accordingly, the review petition was allowed and the learned Single Judge heard the writ petition afresh and has passed Exhibit P4 judgment. In Exhibit P4 judgment the learned Single Judge issued the following directions:

¶46

“2. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent points out that the direction in Ext.P6 is based on the pleadings of the petitioner and no decision has been taken by the Division Bench whether the first respondent or the second respondent has to take a decision as to the operation of taxi by the petitioner. It is further pointed out that it is purely a matter within the second respondent and not for the first respondent to interfere with. It is also submitted that the internal matters between the members has to be sorted out by the members and not by the first respondent as they have no role to interfere with this matter. The notice issued to the second respondent has been returned stating that there is no post of Secretary. The first respondent admits that they have given permission to operate the taxi to the second respondent. The second respondent operates or permits to member to operate the taxi based on the permission granted by the first respondent. Though rights of any member of the Union may be referable to the by-laws of the Union or otherwise, but the paramount right to operate taxi is based on the decision of the first respondent granting permission to the second respondent. In normal circumstances the first respondent is not expected to intervene any internal matter of the second respondent. However, when the right to operate taxi has been granted to the petitioner, the same cannot be denied arbitrarily for the reason that he seeks to replace the old vehicle with new one. Therefore, being an authority vested with power to control the activities of taxi drivers in the Airport premises, the first respondent shall necessarily interfere with the matter. Therefore, the first respondent shall see that

¶47

WP(C).Nos.7820 & 8889 OF 2015(B) 5

¶48

merely for the reason that the petitioner has replaced his vehicle he shall not be denied the right to operate the vehicle from the premises of the Calicut Airport under the prepaid system. Therefore, the first respondent shall take necessary action in this matter and to consider the petitioner's request. If the petitioner is continued to be a member and has permit to operate with old vehicle, the first respondent ensure that no right of the petitioner is denied merely for the reason that he has replaced his vehicle. Necessary action shall be taken after hearing the petitioner and the office bearers of the second respondent within a period of two weeks. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ”

¶49

Apparently on the basis of Exhibit P4, the order impugned dated

¶50

23.2.2015 is passed by the Airport Director. The paramount contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7820/2015 is that, there was a specific direction as to the manner in which the issue was to be considered by the authorities of the Calicut International Airport. However, overlooking the said directions the Airport Director has passed the order impugned by himself and therefore, the said order is arbitrary and illegal, liable to be interfered by this Court.

¶51

I have heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon & Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel Sri.Babu S.Nair for Hussain and learned Counsel Sri.P.Venugopal for Calicut Airport Taxi Drivers Co-ordination Committee and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶52

To resolve the issue, it is better to extract Exhibit P8 order passed by the Airport Director, which read thus:

¶53

WP(C).Nos.7820 & 8889 OF 2015(B) 6

¶54

“Based on the direction by the Hon'ble HC of Kerala vide order dated 15.12.2014, the Petitioner (Hussain) and R1 & R2 were heard on 14.01.2014. As it was clearly concluded that the Petitioner is the regular member of the Calicut Airport Taxi Car Drivers Union and was having the permit to operate old vehicle, the respondents (R1 & R2) were directed to permit Mr. Hussain, Petitioner to operate the services as a member of the Prepaid Taxi System, with the replaced vehicle at the earliest, but not later than 17.01.2015 (Saturday) morning onwards.

¶55

Subsequently two Review Petitions were filed by, RP No 84/2015 by R3 & RP No 85/2015 by R4, seeking review of the judgment. After hearing the RP's, the Hon'le High Court on 29.01.2015, has directed:

¶56

“I am of the view in this matter, the petitioner's right, if any, has to

¶57

be established before the Airport Director, the Airport Director shall hear the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 and take an independent decision. No doubt, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to operate the taxi, necessarily, he shall be permitted to operate the taxi with any vehicle of his choice."

¶58

Accordingly the R3 & R4 were heard on 04.02.2015 at 1430 in the Chamber of the Airport Director. They were given time for an amicable settlement and were informed to communicate their decision by 09.02.2015. The petitioner was not present.

¶59

However, the petitioners claims were already established in the previous meeting. Based on the request by the licensee (R4) on 09.02.2015, time extension up to 16.02.2015 was given to come out with amicable solutions if any. However, no outcome arose till date.

¶60

In the above circumstances, the following orders are passed herewith as per the existing direction of the Hon.High Court.

¶61

A. The petitioner shall be permitted to operate the taxi with any vehicle of his choice in Prepaid Taxi Services of Calicut Intl. Airport.

¶62

B. The R1, R2, R3 & R4 are hereby directed to permit Mr. Hussain, Petitioner to operate the services as a member of the Prepaid Taxi

¶63

WP(C).Nos.7820 & 8889 OF 2015(B) 7

¶64

System, with any vehicle of his choice latest by 01.03.2015 (Sunday) morning onwards.”

¶65

On a reading of Exhibit P8, one thing is clear the said order is passed by the Airport Director without any juncture of the committee members as directed by the learned Single Judge in Exhibit P4 judgment. For that sole reason, Exhibit P8 should go since Exhibit P4 judgment rendered by this Court has become final, and therefore, the modality prescribed in the judgment to resolve the issue had to be followed by the authority. Having not done so, Exhibit P8 order is arbitrary and illegal, liable to be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶66

Therefore, I quash Exhibit P8 order and direct the Airport Director of the Calicut International Airport to constitute a committee as directed by the learned Single Judge in Exhibit P4 judgment in W.P.(C) No.30334/2014 dated 29.1.2015, at the earliest possible time and at any rate within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing a notice of hearing to Mr.Kunjumohammed, the present licensee of the prepaid taxi system and Mr.Hussain. W.P.(C) No.7820/2015 is allowed accordingly.

¶67

I am also of the considered opinion that since the aggrieved person has challenged the order of the Airport Director in W.P.(C) No.7820/2015, W.P. (C) No.8889/2015 may not have much bearing to the issue. Learned counsel for petitioner has also submitted that the subject matter has become infructuous

¶68

WP(C).Nos.7820 & 8889 OF 2015(B) 8

¶69

consequent to the filing of other writ petition by the aggrieved person. Accordingly the said writ petition is closed as infructuous.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

smv

WP(C).Nos.7820 & 8889 OF 2015(B) 9

¶75

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7820/2015

¶76

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶77

EXHIBIT P1 EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REGISTRATION BOOK. EXHIBIT P2 EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.30334 OF 2014 DATED 15.12.2014 EXHIBIT P3 EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.1.2015 EXHIBIT P4 EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.30334 OF 2014 DATED 29.1.2015 EXHIBIT P5 EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENT EXHIBIT P6 EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDE LINES EXHIBIT P7 EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC 33730/2005 DATED 3.10.2007 EXHIBIT P8 EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.2.2015

¶78

WP(C).Nos.7820 & 8889 OF 2015(B) 10

¶79

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8889/2015

¶80

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶81

EXHIBIT P1	EXT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LICENS AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT.
EXHIBIT P2	EXT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.28219 OF 2014 DATED 28-10-2014.
EXHIBIT P3	EXT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-12-2014 IN WPC.NO.30334 OF 2014.
EXHIBIT P4	EXT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23- 01-2015 IN RP 85 OF 2015 IN WPC.NO.30334 OF 2014.
EXHIBIT P5	EXT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-01-2015 IN WPC.NO.30334 OF 2014.
EXHIBIT P6	EXT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03-02-2015.
EXHIBIT P7	EXT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23-02-2015.
EXHIBIT P8	EXT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-11-2012 IN WPC.NO.22770 OF 2011.
EXHIBIT P9	EXT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24-02-2014 IN WPC.NO.4627 OF 2014.
EXHIBIT P10	EXT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05-11-2004 IN WA.NO.1919 OF 2004.

K.C.Abdul Kareem v. Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C.Abdul Kareem v. Hussain

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

Kunjukunjamma Vs D.Sanjay Prabhu

Shyni.v. Vs Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

Balachandran Vs Kalpa Tharu Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Dr.C.Rajasekharan Vs Deepa L.S

Chandini P.P. Vs the Malabar Regional Milk Producers

Kunjumohammed.K. Vs the Airport Director, Calicut Airport