IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28208 of 2009(U)
1. SUNIL DUTH, KIZHAKKEVILAKOM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL),
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL.
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL.
5. THE ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY,
6. THE SECRETRY,
7. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PRIVATE BUS
8. KAVIRAJAN, SECRETARY,
9. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (RURAL)
10. SRI.SARNGADHARAN, PRESIDENT,
11. SRI.JAYAN, SECRETARY,
12. SRI.SABU, S/O.SAINULABDEEN,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.RAJESH
For Respondent :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :02/12/2009
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P(C)No.28208 of 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009
JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph, J.
The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:-
(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, direction or order
commanding the respondents 2 to 4 to give
adequate and effective police protection to the
petitioner and his employees and also for
collecting the bus stand fees and route
announcement fees as per Ext.P1 and P6 at the
Attingal Municipal Bus stand during the financial
year 2009-10, from the illegal and highhanded
actions of respondents 7 to 12, their employees
and henchmen.
According to the petitioner owing to resistance from respondents
7 to 12 he is not in a position to collect the bus-stand fee as duly
authorised by the 5th respondent Municipality. The Municipality
supports the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that the
Municipality has duly authorised the petitioner as per the tender,
to collect the fees. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
W.P(C)No.28208 of 2009
-:2:-
respondents 7 to 12 submits that collection of announcement fee
is not an authorised levy. It is also submitted that there was no
such condition at the time of tender. Still further it is the case of
the party respondents that the levy was given as a special
concession to the petitioner. In view of the vehement submission
on the part of the learned Senior Counsel that the levy is not
authorised as per the tender condition we called for the records
pertaining to the tender. We find from the tender notification
itself that the Municipality had notified not only the collection of
bus stand fee, but the announcement fee also. We find from the
records that the Municipality had not in fact fixed the rates. It
was for fixation of rates, the petitioner made the representation
before the Municipality and the Municipality only fixed the rates
as per its decision dated 14-8-2009. We find from Ext.R7 that
the party respondents have taken up the matter in appeal before
the Municipal Council. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the
party respondents pursue their proper remedy, which they have
pursued before the Municipal Council. However, there is no
justification in not permitting the petitioner to collect the
W.P(C)No.28208 of 2009
-:3:-
announcement fee as fixed by the Municipality and as duly
authorised, until a decision is taken by the Municipality in the
appeal/appeals filed by the party respondents.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing
respondents 1 to 4 to render necessary assistance to the
petitioner to collect the bus stand fee and the announcement fee
as duly authorised by respondents 5 and 6. However, this will be
subject to the decision taken by the Municipality in the appeals
filed by respondents 7 to 12.
(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ahg.
KURIAN JOSEPH &
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
—————————
W.P(C)No.28208 of 2009
—————————-
JUDGMENT
2nd December, 2009