Allowed

R. Rajalakshmi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2024WP(C)/3497/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking payment of damage compensation assessed at Rs. 8,27,151 for the petitioner's hotel convert ed into a COVID-19 Quarantine Centre. Directing the Government Competent Authority to issue orders permitting the disbursement within one month, ensuring subsequent payment within another month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Government Competent Authority to issue orders permitting the disbursement of the assessed sum of Rs.8,27,151 within one month, and ensure payment within one month thereafter.

R. Rajalakshmi Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

W.P.(C) NO.3497 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

R. RAJALAKSHMI, AGED 42 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX, HOTEL ARYAAS RESIDENCY, OPP. BOAT JETTY, MINI CIVIL STATION, FINISHING POINT ROAD, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 013.

¶8

BY ADVS.VINEETH KOMALACHANDRAN T.K.SREEKALA KALLIYANI KRISHNA B.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE & DISASTER MANAGEMENT STATE RELIEF COMMISSIONER & CONVENER, KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & CHAIRMAN, DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA BAZAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 012.

¶12

3 ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, CCSB ROAD, KODIVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001.

¶13

R1&R2 SRI.P.S.APPU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

R3 SRI.R.AZAD BABU,STANDING COUNSEL,ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

-2-

¶17

W.P.(C) NO.3497 OF 2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2024

¶20

The petitioner's hotel was taken over by the District Collector in his capacity as the Chairperson of the Disaster District Management Authority (DDMA), for the purpose of converting it as a “Quarantine Centre”, during the Covid-19 pandemic; but when it was returned to her, it was found that there had been large scale damage to its infrastructure, including electrical installations like air conditioning and such other. She says that the damage was assessed by the competent Authority of Alappuzha Municipality, to a sum of Rs.8,27,151/-; but that, thereafter, no action has been taken by the District Collector to disburse the said amounts to her. She thus prays that respondents 2 and 3 be directed to disburse the afore amount, which has been quantified through Exts.P7 and P9, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶21

Sri.R.Azad Babu – learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality, conceded that his client's Secretary has already reported to the District Collector that the afore amount comprises the actual damage caused to the property and its

¶22

-3-

¶23

W.P.(C) NO.3497 OF 2023

¶24

fixtures, and therefore, prayed that no further orders be issued against them.

¶25

Sri.P.S.Appu – learned Government Pleader, also conceded that the total damages caused to the petitioner's hotel has been quantified as Rs.8,27,151/-. He then drew my attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, particularly Paragraph 10 thereof, to say that, in the absence of a Government Order enabling the District Collector to disburse the compensation to the petitioner, it cannot be done by the said Authority. He submitted that therefore, it is now for the Government to take a final decision on this issue.

¶26

I must say that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of the learned Government Pleader because, when the petitioner surrendered her property voluntarily in a humanitarian gesture, for the purpose of allowing the Government to set up infrastructure during the Covid-19 pandemic, she ought to have been given the respect that she deserves as a good citizen. However, she must have certainly been agonised to find that the building had suffered extensive damage; and though it was assessed by the Secretary of the

¶27

-4-

¶28

W.P.(C) NO.3497 OF 2023

¶29

Municipality to a sum of Rs.8,27,151/-, she has been forced to wait for the last several months for her entitled compensation.

¶30

It is rather strange that the District Collector also affirms that the petitioner has suffered the afore amount and is entitled to compensation, but then takes a stand that, as per the Government Order - which deals with the manner in which the facilities taken over by the DDMA requires to be dealt with - it does not provide for payment of any amount towards damages incurred to the building. In other words, the stand of the District Collector is that, though he is authorised to pay the relevant rent and such other user charges to the owners of buildings taken over as Covid First - Line Treatment Centres and Covid Care Centres, he is not permitted to pay damages caused to them, either on account of usage or by deliberate action of the patients who were accommodated therein.

¶31

It is needless to emphasize that the afore stand of the District Collector is rather tenuous because, he is also acting as an agency of the Government, when he had taken over the building for the afore purposes.

¶32

-5-

¶33

W.P.(C) NO.3497 OF 2023

¶34

That being so, if the Government Order does not authorise the District Collector to pay the damages, then certainly, I cannot blame him either fully, and it now squarely falls on the latter. They cannot now sit on this issue and refuse action because, it is finally for them to answer the claim.

¶35

Since the afore is not contested before this Court and since the counter affidavit of the District Collector says that an apposite Government Order is required for payment of compensation already assessed by him in favour of the petitioner, I allow this writ petition with the following directions:-

¶36

a) The competent Authority of the Government will immediately take up the recommendation of the District Collector, as reflected in his proceedings No.DMC3-250961/2021 dated 29.03.2022 – produced along with a Memo of the learned Government Pleader dated 27.02.2024 – and issue appropriate orders with respect to the claim of the petitioner for the sum of Rs.8,27,151/-, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

-6-

¶38

W.P.(C) NO.3497 OF 2023

¶39

b) On the Government issuing orders as afore and if they are to permit the payment of amounts to the petitioner, then the competent Authority shall ensure that the petitioner is disbursed the said amount within a period of one month thereafter.

¶40

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶41

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶42

bpr

¶43

-7-

¶44

W.P.(C) NO.3497 OF 2023

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3497/2023

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 08.05.2019 EXECUTED THE PETITIONER AND THE LANDOWNERS

¶48

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT SHOWING HER WILLINGNESS/ ACCEPTANCE TO SURRENDER HER HOTEL PREMISES FOR COVID-19 CARE CENTRE DATED 21.03.2020

¶49

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. G.O.(MS) NO. 21/2020/DMD DATED 25.06.2020

¶50

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS) NO. 22/2020/DMD DATED 26.06.2020 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER DATED 5.1.2021

¶51

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.4.2021

¶52

Exhibit7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.5.2021

¶53

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 28496/2021DATED 3.1.2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶54

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DRAWN BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL WING OF PWD, ALAPUZHA DATED 13.9.2022

R. Rajalakshmi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Rajalakshmi v. 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

Kerala Gramin Bank, Represeted by Its General Manager Vs the Kerala State Commission for Minorities

Sarafniyas N.K, Vs Union of India

K.Kannan, Vs Ms. Bhandari Swagath Ranveer Chand

All Kerala Parents Association of Hearing Impaired (Akpahi) Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Rafeek Vs State of Kerala

M.V. Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala