IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 2007 of 2007(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS HOSTEL - INMATES WELFARE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SURESH BABU M.T. GOVERNMENT SERVANTS HOSTEL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SMT.PREEJA. P.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(BUILDING AND LOCAL WORKS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.2007/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT. 30.3.88. P2:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT. 24.9.02. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.32395/02 DT. 28.6.06. P4:- COPY OF THE REPLY ADDRESSED TO IST RESPONDENT DT. 2.11.06. P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.17217/E3/O6/PWD DT. 22.11.06. P6:- COPY OF THE REPLY ADDRESSED TO IST RESPONDENT DT. 9.12.06. P7:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 8.12.06 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS 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 ½ 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