IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2007 of 2007(L)
1. THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS HOSTEL -
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(BUILDING AND LOCAL
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :19/03/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
………………………………………………………………
W.P.(C) No. 2007 OF 2007
……………………………………………………………….
Dated this the 19th March, 2009
J U D G M EN T
The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P7 order passed by the
first respondent sustaining Ext.P2 hike in the subsidised monthly
rent payable in respect of the Government hostel
accommodation provided to the Government servants, which was
directed to be considered vide Ext.P3 judgment.
2. The petitioner is an association representing nearly
‘350’ persons who are Government employees and occupants of
various Government servants’ hostels in Kozhikode district. The
grievance of the petitioner is that the subsidised standard
monthly rent originally fixed in respect of the hostel
accommodation, as per the Government Order dated
23.06.1973 was Rs.25/- and 20/- in respect of single and
double occupancy respectively, which was later enhanced to Rs.
100/- and 60/- respectively vide Ext.P1 Government Order. The
W.P.(C) No. 2007 OF 2007
2
amount was further enhanced to Rs.500/- vide Ext.P2
Government Order dated 24.09.2002, simultaneously stipulating
that the occupants are also liable to pay electricity and water
charges at the rate of 150/- and Rs.25/- per month
respectively. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, the petitioner and another
employee approached this court by filing O.P.No. 32395 of 2002
which was disposed of vide Ext.P3 judgment, directing the first
respondent to consider the representation and to pass
appropriate orders after giving an opportunity for hearing to the
petitioners within the time as specified therein. The petitioner
contends that even though he was served with notices dated
19.10.2006 and 26.11.2006 calling for the hearing scheduled to
be held on 30.10.2006 and 06.12.2006 respectively, the same
could not be attended as the said notices were received by the
petitioner only after the date of hearing, which made the
petitioner to submit Exts.P4 and P6 representations seeking for
further adjournment and for yet another opportunity. The
petitioner submits that Ext. P7 order impugned in this Writ
Petition is wrong and has been passed by the first respondent
W.P.(C) No. 2007 OF 2007
3
without any regard to the request for adjournment and
opportunity for hearing.
3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit
sustaining Exts.P2 and P7 and contending that the rates shown
in Ext.P1 was fixed 1 = decades prior to issuance of Ext.P2 and
absolutely no separate charges for electricity and water were
included therein. By the passage of time, the expenses on
various heads including electricity and water charges got
increased by several folds, which necessitated appropriate
enhancement of rental charges as well, particularly when the
Government employees were benefited with several rounds of
pay revision, states the respondent. It is further submitted that
the matter was considered in detail pursuant to the direction
given in Ext.P3 judgment, of course, after giving an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner by issuing notice as to the date of
hearing scheduled; though the petitioner did not make use of
the opportunity to attend the hearing, scheduled as above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
concerned notices for hearing sent by the first respondent were
W.P.(C) No. 2007 OF 2007
4
served to him only after the date of hearing and hence that no
effective opportunity was given before passing Ext.P7. Learned
Government Pleader submits, with reference to specific
averments in the counter affidavit, that notices in respect of
hearing were given well in advance, but the petitioner did not
make use of the opportunity given. Ext.P7 reveals that the
first respondent, before passing the same had issued notice to
the petitioner in compliance with the direction in Ext. P3
judgment. In Exts.P4 and P6 representations, the petitioner,
though has put forth a contention that such notices were served
to him only subsequently, absolutely no material has been
produced before this court to arrive at any such inference. The
petitioner has no case that Exts.P4 and P6 representations were
sent by registered post or even under certificate of posting. No
postal acknowledgment card or the postal receipt regarding
registration has been produced before this court. That apart,
Ext.P4 representation is even not signed by the petitioner. In the
above circumstance, absolutely no reliance can be placed on
Exts.P4 and P6 or on the submission of the petitioner as to the
W.P.(C) No. 2007 OF 2007
5
denial of opportunity by first respondent before passing Ext.P7.
5. On going through Ext. P7, it is seen that all the relevant
aspects have been considered by the first respondent before
arriving at the conclusion to sustain Ext. P2 and that the
recommendation of the Legislative Committee for Welfare of
Women, Children and Physically Handicapped persons to enhance
the rent of the Government Hostels since the rent fixed for
Government hostels was too low, was also taken into account
while taking the decision to enhance the rent. It is also observed
therein that the pay of the Government employees had been
revised several times since then, whereas only the rent of
Quarters/Flats was revised as per the pay revision orders,
leaving out the Government Hostels. That apart, while fixing
the rent for Government hostels, electricity and water charges
were not considered earlier , which in fact have been increased
to several times. Referring to the relevant proceedings, the first
respondent has also observed that the occupants of the
Government Quarters are not eligible for H.R.A. , whereas the
hostel occupants like the members of the petitioner association
W.P.(C) No. 2007 OF 2007
6
are very much eligible for the same.
In the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not
find any tenable ground to intercept the finding and reasoning
given by the first respondent in Ext.P7 sustaining Ext.P2. The
Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk