IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 2204 of 1998(K)
1. P.JAYAPRAKASH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :28/10/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. No. 2204 of 1998
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 28th October, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, while he was an unemployed engineer, availed
of the facility offered by the Government for handing over a Common
Facility Service Centre for Blacksmithy at Eramaloor pursuant to
which by Ext. P1 Government Order, the Government agreed in
principle to hand over the Common Facility Service Centre for
Blacksmithy at Eramaloor to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P2
Government Order was passed provisionally fixing the value of the
land, building and machinery as well as furniture as Rs. 45,184.43.
By Ext. P2, it was decided to hand over the land, building and
machinery to the petitioner on the petitioner remitting an amount of
Rs. 2500/- as advance, leaving the balance to be paid later after
finalising the value. Accordingly, the Centre was handed over to the
petitioner. The petitioner would contend that as evidenced by Ext.
P3, the petitioner had paid the entire amounts payable by the
petitioner in respect of the Centre and therefore he became the
absolute owner of the Centre. According to the petitioner, due to
circumstances beyond his control, he had to temporarily suspend the
functioning of the Centre for some years as he was out of station.
After coming back, the petitioner is stated to have approached the
Government for execution of appropriate documents for transfer of
title and to give effective possession of the unit to the petitioner. As
there was no response from the Government, the petitioner has
approached this Court seeking the following relief:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,m order
or direction commanding the respondents to effect the transfer in
accordance with law and put the petitioner in effective possession
of the land, buildings and machinery in the common facilities
service centre for blacksmithy, Erameloor, Cherthala.”
2. The contention raised by the petitioner is that on payment of
O.P. No. 2204/1998 -: 2 :-
the entire amounts due under the agreement executed for the
purpose, the Government is duty bound to transfer the title over the
unit to the petitioner.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent,
wherein the respondents refuted the right of the petitioner for the
relief prayed for. According to them, the unit has been handed over
to the petitioner not absolutely to do whatever he pleases with the
Centre, but it was handed over to the petitioner specifically for
running it. Therefore, the petitioner can continue to be in possession
and ownership of the same only if the petitioner continues to run it
notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has paid the amounts due
under the agreement. According to them, as admitted by the
petitioner himself, for some years, the unit was closed down even
violating the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is pointed out
that in clause 10 of Ext. R2(a) governing the issue, if the petitioner
commits breach of any of the provisions of the agreement, he is bound
to surrender possession of the unit to the Government immediately on
demand and the Government shall have power to deal with the said
Unit in any manner they deem fit. In case the petitioner fails to
surrender the Unit when demanded, the petitioner would be
considered as a trespasser liable to be proceeded against and evicted
under the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act for the time being
in force. It is therefore submitted on behalf of the respondents by the
Government Pleader that when admittedly the petitioner has violated
the terms and conditions of the agreement, he loses all his right under
the agreement and as a result, he cannot validly demand that the
Government is entitled to comply with their part of the agreement by
transferring title in respect of the Unit to the petitioner.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
O.P. No. 2204/1998 -: 3 :-
5. As is clear from Ext. P1, the transaction is not a mere
conveyance of the property, building and machinery constituting the
Common Facility Service Centre. The transaction is governed by
other Government Orders, namely, G.O.MS.817/63/ID dated 21-11-
1963 as modified by G.O.MS.302/67/ID dated 31-8-1967 as is clear
from Ext. P1 Government Order itself. The handing over is as per a
scheme formulated by the Government for handing over
departmentally run production centres, commercial Schemes,
Common Facility service centres and Training Centres under the
Rural Development Programmes to private parties. That being so, the
intention behind such handing over is not merely to let persons like
the petitioner have the unit absolutely to himself, but is specifically
for the purpose of continuing to run it for the benefit of the society as
a whole. Therefore, the petitioner continues to have the right to hold
on to the same only if he continues to run the Common Facility
Service Centre as envisaged by the scheme. Any other interpretation
would defeat the very purpose of the scheme itself. The petitioner
himself admits that he could not run the Centre for years together.
Therefore, by the failure on the part of the petitioner in running the
Common Facility Service Centre as envisaged by the Government, the
petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement
executed by him with the Government. As I have said, the intention
behind this handing over is not merely for the petitioner to get title
over the properties, building and machinery, but to enable the
petitioner to run the Common Facility Service Centre for the
betterment of the society as a whole. The petitioner has sadly failed
to honour the terms and conditions of the privilege vested with him.
It is even admitted before me that some parties have encroached into
the property in question and the petitioner has lost control over the
O.P. No. 2204/1998 -: 4 :-
property even. In the above circumstances, the very object of
handing over the Common Facility Service Centre to the petitioner
has been completely defeated. The fact that the petitioner wants a
direction to the respondents to put him in effective possession of the
land itself shows that the petitioner has lost possession of the
property. Under the agreement the petitioner is duty bound to keep
the unit in proper maintenance, repair and working order, which also
he has failed to do. That being so, I am not satisfied that the
petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in this original petition.
Therefore, I decline to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour
of the petitioner. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.
S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/