Disposed

K.Ramachandran v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Dec 2022WP(C)/15301/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that contractual disputes concerning rent and the extension of a tourism centre lease are not suo motu writ jurisdiction matters. However, due to the public nature of the centre, the Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representations and take a decision after a hearing within ten days, pending which the status quo shall remain.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to consider representations, afford an opportunity of hearing, and take a decision within ten days; status quo maintained till then.

K.Ramachandran Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

W.P.(C) NO.15301 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. V.R.S.MENON, LICENSEE, DTPC CHETTUVA VAZHIYORA VISRAMA KENDRAM, CHETTUVA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 616 RESIDING AT KUNNATHULLI HOUSE, PALUVAYI P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 522.

¶8

BY ADVS. K.ANAND ANOOP.V.NAIR RAMESH CHAND DEVI P. A.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶13

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 003.

¶14

SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

-2-

¶17

W.P.(C) NO.15301 OF 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2022

¶20

The petitioner was awarded the tender the 'Chettuva Way Side Amenity Centre' in the year 2012. The work was awarded pursuant to the decision taken by the District Tourism Promotion Council, Thrissur on 16.01.2012. The contract period of three years was extended periodically upto 2021. The petitioner had to close down the tourism centre by reason of Covid 19 and resultant lock down. As a result, the rent was also defaulted. The petitioner has not been able to re-open the tourism centre, as the contract period is not extended/renewed.

¶21

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶22

There is a dispute whether the petitioner failed to commence activities at the centre even after the contract period was extended. The petitioner's claim for reduction of rent, in view of the fact that he could function the centre for only 48 days during the last two years is also disputed. The

¶23

-3-

¶24

W.P.(C) NO.15301 OF 2022

¶25

said disputes cannot be resolved in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

As the petitioner has approached the District Tourism Promotion Council with Exts.P12 and P16 representations, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4^th respondent to consider Exts.P12 and P16 representations and take appropriate decision thereon, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Considering that an amenity centre catering to the needs of the public is remaining closed from 2021 onwards, the 4^th respondent shall take a decision on the representations within a period of ten days. Till a decision is taken, the status quo order will continue to be in force.

¶27

Sd/- V.G. ARUN JUDGE

¶28

bpr

¶29

-4-

¶30

W.P.(C) NO.15301 OF 2022

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15301/2022

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶33

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE NO. 01/2012 ISSUE DATED 26.05.2012, CHAVAKKAD, INTIMA OF SALE.	LETTER WITH D.T.P.C D BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE TAHSILDAR, TING THE CONFIRMATION
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE BETWEEN THE PETIT RESPONDENT IN 201	AGREEMENT ENTERED UPON IONER AND THE 2ND 5.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE BETWEEN THE PETIT RESPONDENT IN 201	AGREEMENT ENTERED UPON IONER AND THE 2ND 8.
EXHIBIT P3(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE 10.10.2019, INFOR LEASE PERIOD, ISS BY THE 3RD RESPON	LETTER DATED MING EXTENSION OF UED TO THE PETITIONER DENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE THE LOOK AND STYL SURROUNDINGS IN 2 OVER THE SAME TO RESPONDENT.	PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING E A BUILDING AND THE 012, BEFORE HANDING THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LOOK AND STYLE OF SURROUNDINGS AFTE THE PETITIONER.	PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE THE BUILDING AND ITS R 2012, WHEN RUN BY
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE 3RD	ORDER DATED 24.02.2021 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE 07.01.2021, ISSUE RESPONDENT.	ORDER DATED D BY THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE	REPRESENTATION
	SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT, DATED	PETITIONER THE 2ND NIL.

¶34

-5-

¶35

W.P.(C) NO.15301 OF 2022

¶36

EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT, DATED	REPRESENTATIONS PETITIONER TO THE 3RD NIL.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE NIL SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT.	REPRESENTATION DATED PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE 19.02.2022, ISSUE RESPONDENT TO THE	LETTER DATED D BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.02.2022.	REPLY LETTER SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE 05.11.2021, ISSUE RESPONDENT BY THE	LETTER DATED D TO THE 2ND 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.	ORDER DATED 25.01.2022 RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE 21.04.2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER	LETTER DATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT .
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE MAIL ON 07.04.202	REQUEST SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT VIA 2.
EXHIBIT P16(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED FROM VADAN STATION, TO THE P 04.04.2022.	ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT APPILLY POLICE ETITIONER, DATED
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED THE 2ND AND 3RD R PETITIONER.	APPRECIATION 20.02.2022 ISSUED BY ESPONDENT TO THE

K.Ramachandran v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramachandran v. the State of Kerala

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

Rajesh.P.R Vs Child Welfare Committee

Roopam Engineers and Contractors Private Limited Vs Indian Space Research Organization (Isro)

The Thiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.3260, Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Sreelekshmi Sanush Vs the State of Kerala

Ubaidulla T.K. Vs Union of India

Ajmal Khan Vs the State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary to Government of Kerala