Dismissed

Mahalakshmi, v. the Executive Engineer

Kerala HC5 Jan 2022WP(C)/140/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of writ petition quashing eviction notice of convicted employee. Allowed petitioners to vacate only after remitting arrears of rent; directed respondent to consider representation for compassionate stay till academic year ends.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to remit arrears of rent within two weeks to get eviction deferred till end of academic year if services restored.

Mahalakshmi, Vs the Executive Engineer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022/15TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 140 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MAHALAKSHMI, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. CHANDRAN, QUARTERS NO.D-17, KSEB COLONY, KALLARKUTTY, IDUKKI -685 562.

¶8

2 CHANDRAN M., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. MARIYAPPAN, QUARTERS NO. D-17, KSEB COLONY, KALLARKUTTY, IDUKKI-685 562.

¶9

BY ADVS. RENJITH B.MARAR LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL ARUN POOMULLI SURABHI SANTHOSH SRILAKSHMI NAIR R

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GENERATION DIVISION, KALLARKUTTY, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 562.

¶12

BY ADV.SRI.B.PRAMOD, SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.140/2022

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2022

¶18

The 2^nd petitioner who was an Assistant Engineer under the Kerala State Electricity Board was allotted quarters for residential purpose. The 1^st petitioner is the wife of the 2^nd petitioner. The 2^nd petitioner was convicted for a criminal offence on 22.02.2020. An appeal is preferred by the petitioner. However, in the meanwhile, the petitioner was removed from service based on the conviction by criminal court. Now the respondent has issued a notice dated 03.11.2021 directing the 2^nd petitioner to vacate the quarters allocated to him. It is aggrieved by the said order that the petitioners are before this Court.

¶19

The petitioners submit that their son is studying for Plus Two Course and during the academic year if the petitioners are evicted from the quarters, the educational

¶20

¶21

WP(C)No.140/2022

¶22

career of the petitioners' son will be adversely affected.

¶23

Therefore the petitioners pray that Exts.P1 and P3 may be quashed and the respondent be directed to consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner.

¶24

The learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB points out that as per Ext.P3, the petitioners are liable to pay arrears of rent to the tune of `14,487/- inclusive of surcharge. The petitioners have no legal right to continue in the quarters so long as the 2^nd petitioner is not in service. In the circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, contends the learned Standing Counsel.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent.

¶26

The main reason advanced by the petitioners seeking to continue in the quarters is that their son is studying for Plus Two and if before the academic year they

¶27

¶28

¶29

are forced to vacate the quarters, career of their son will be in jeopardy. Considering the facts, this Court is of the view that this is a matter that can be considered by the respondent – Executive Engineer. However, the petitioners are liable to pay arrears of rent during the period they are occupying the quarters.

¶30

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to remit the arrears of rent in respect of residential quarters within a period of two weeks. If the petitioners remit the arrears within the aforesaid period of two weeks, the respondent shall consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioners for continuing in

¶31

the quarters till the end of the academic year, on a compassionate basis.

¶32

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd/05.01.2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 140/2022

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶38

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF	THE ORDER DATED
	03.11.2021 DIRECT	ING THE PETITIONER
	TO VACATE THE PRE	MISES.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE	REPRESENTATION DATED
	06.11.2021 PREFE	RRED BY THE 1ST
	PETITIONER BEFORE	THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF	THE ORDER DATED
	22.12.2021 ISSUED	BY THE RESPONDENT.

Mahalakshmi, v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahalakshmi, v. the Executive Engineer

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

Moncy Daniel Vs the Alappuzha Municipality

Sajikumar.S.L., Vs Additional Chief Secretary

Biju Augustine Vs Kerala Water Authority

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu.a.v Vs Manalur Grama Panchayath

Sultan Thomas Oommen, Vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs (Mca)