P.K.Krishnan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37403 of 2010(A)


1. P.K.KRISHNAN NAIR, (PRAKASH MOTORS),
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

3. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARA KAIMAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :15/12/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                   W.P.(C) NO. 37403 OF 2010
                 =====================

         Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is a landlord of the premises which is occupied by

the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, in terms of Ext.P1

agreement, the rent is to be revised in every five years. It is

stated that although the PWD authorities have fixed the rent and

though proposals for revision of rent from the year 2000 have

been submitted before the 2nd respondent, 2nd respondent has not

passed any orders on the proposals, as a result of which, the

petitioner is not getting revised rent since 2000. It is stated that

the same grievance pertains to the excess area occupied by the

3rd respondent also. Petitioner further complains that even the

representations made by him have not been answered. It is in

these circumstances the writ petition is filed.

2. If as a matter of fact, rent is to be revised every five

years at the rate as fixed by the PWD authorities and if PWD

authorities have fixed the rent and submitted proposals in that

behalf, I see no reason why the 2nd respondent should not have

passed orders in the matter.

WPC No. 37403/10
:2 :

3. Taking note of the above situation and having regard

to the pendency of the representations thus far submitted by the

petitioner, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this

judgment, the 2nd respondent will consider the issue, and if

proposals are awaiting his clearance, necessary orders in that

behalf will be passed. This the 2nd respondent shall do at any rate

within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along

with a copy of this writ petition.

4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along

with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for

compliance.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp