IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6833 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.C. KORATH, S/O. CHERIATH, ALUKKA PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, JOSEPURAM, VAPPALASSERY P.O., ANGAMALY 683 572, BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE SRI.M.C.ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, COCHIN INTERNATIONA AIR PORT LTD., NEDUMBASSERY. 2. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL, AIR PORT TAX, CO-OERATIVE SOCIETY, NEDUMBASSERY. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KIAS LTD. FOR R1 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC, COCHIN I AIRPORT LT FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.6833 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a land acquisition evictee. It is stated that the 1st respondent had agreed to provide taxi permits to such of those eligible evictees or their nominees. According to the petitioner, he made an application, and eventually Ext.P3 list was prepared and he was included at Sl.No.24. But, it is stated that since he did not have a badge, he was not issued the taxi permit. Therefore, as permitted by the authorities, he nominated his nephew, one Mr.Thankachan. Ext.P4 is the nomination. Ext.P5 is the consent letter and Ext.P6 is the badge of his nephew. Despite long lapse of time the respondents have not taken a decision thereon, the writ petition has been filed. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have admitted of having received the nomination made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner's claim, will be considered along with other similar claimants. 3. Now that since the respondents have in their counter WP(C) No.6833/2009 -2- affidavit accepted their willingness to consider the case of the petitioner, substantially the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for issue of taxi permit to his nephew along with others, similarly situated. The claim shall be considered and final orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg