IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 8787 of 2002(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THE KERALA STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. MR.G.JANARDHANA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.P.V.SURENDRANATH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY TO HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.15687/2002 IN O.P.NO.8787/2002 U CLOSED 28/05/2009 SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER G.O.NO.250/2000/REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 8/08/2000. P2: COPY OF THE PROGRAMME WITH RESPECT TO LAYING OF FOUNDATION BY THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA ON 15/11/2000. P3: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER G.O.NO.40/2002/REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 14/03/02 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.18(2) OF THE STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL DTD. 12/01/1999. P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL BEFORE THE GOVT.THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT WITH COPIES TO HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER, MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, MINISTER FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENT ETC. P6: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 11/08/2000 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND SERVED ON THE PETITIONER HANDING OVER THE LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE OFFICE COMPLEX. P8: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER G.O.(OD) NO.164/2001 HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT, TVM DTD. 24/01/2001. P9: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE SKETCH & PLAN PREPARED BY THE VASTHU VIDHYA GURUKULAM ARANMULA. Kss ..2/- ...2...... O.P.NO.8787/2002 U P10: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VASTHUVIDHYA GURUKULAM FOR THE RECEIPT OF Rs.2,00,000/- DTD. 14/12/2000. P10(A):COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VASTHU VIDYA GURUKULAM FOR RECEIPT OF Rs.2,50,000/- ON 22/05/01. P11: COPY OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION DTD. 16/02/2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2 (A) & (B):COPIES OF THE SURVEY SKETCH PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VANCHIYOOR IN SY.NO.3038. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- O.P.No. 8787 of 2002 - U --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Kerala State Library Council, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Secretary which is a statutory body constituted as per Section 3 of the Kerala Public Libraries (Kerala Granthasala Sanghom) Act XV of 1989. The grievance of the petitioner is that, as per Ext.P1 dated 8.8.2000, the first respondent accorded sanction for the construction of office complex and EMS Memorial Library and Information Technology Institute in 20 cents of Government Puramboke land in Sy.No.3038 in Vanjiyoor Village of Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District on the basis of which the then Chief Minister laid the foundation stone on 15.11.2000 and while the project was in progress, Ext.P1 order of sanction was cancelled by Ext.P3 order issued by the Government on 14.3.2002. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 order was issued by the Government on its satisfaction regarding the genuineness and requirement of the petitioner-Council for its office complex at the site proposed. It is also the case of the petitioner that after Ext.P1 order, as OP NO. 8787 of 2002 :-2-: per Ext.P8 a technical committee was also constituted by the Government for the construction and completion of the project. It is the further case of the petitioner that the property in question was already handed over to the petitioner as per Ext.P7 and now Ext.P3 order is issued without any enquiry and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and that too without assigning any reason whatsoever. 2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 14.7.2003 wherein it is admitted that the petitioner-Council has requested transfer of 20 cents of puramboke land comprised in Sy.No.3038 of Vanchiyoor Village for the construction of their Golden Jubilee Memorial Office Complex and E.M.S.Memorial Library and Information Technology Institute, based upon which the proposal for transfer of land with sketch, mahazar and valuation report was sent to the Government by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram. The Government examined the proposal in detail and ordered permissive sanction to the Library Council for its project in the 20 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.3038 of Vanchiyoor Village vide G.O(MS) No.250/2000/RD dtd.8.8.2000, a copy of which is marked as Ext.P1 in the writ petition. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that in OP NO. 8787 of 2002 :-3-: accordance with the above Government Order, further steps were initiated to hand over the land to petitioner-Council. Accordingly, the Taluk Surveyor conducted the survey and demarcation of land having an extent of 20 cents comprised in Sy.No.3038 of Vanchiyoor Village and boundaries of the area were also fixed. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in the meanwhile, a suit i.e., O.S.No.1873 of 2000 was filed before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram by the Christ Church authorities against the transfer of land. In the counter affidavit, all other factual assertions made by the petitioner are admitted. The only statement contained in the counter affidavit is to the effect that Ext.P3 order is issued to rectify the mistake committed by the Government while issuing Ext.P1 order. Thus, according to the counter affidavit, the Government rectified the mistake by ordering cancellation of Ext.P1 order. In paragraph 12 also, the same averment is repeated. In short, the stand of the Government is that as per G.O(MS) No.250/2000/RD dated 8.8.2000, the Government earlier accorded sanction to construct office of Library Council, but later found that the order was issued wrongly and the Government rectified the mistake by cancelling it. Even though I have repeatedly perused the counter affidavit, OP NO. 8787 of 2002 :-4-: nothing is stated as to what are the alleged mistakes committed by the Government while issuing Ext.P1 order. In Ext.P3 also, absolutely no reason is stated or the so-called mistake is not mentioned to cancel Ext.P1 order. 3. The second respondent has filed an additional affidavit also which is dated 9.4.2007. The additional affidavit was filed on the basis of the direction issued by this Court on 19.2.2007 by which the second respondent was directed to produce a copy of the survey sketch prepared by the Village Officer, Vanchiyoor in respect of the land in Sy.No.3038. Copies of the survey sketch are produced as Exts.R2(a) and (b). On the basis of the direction issued by this Court, in the additional affidavit, it is stated that O.S.No.1873 of 2000, which was referred in the earlier counter affidavit, was dismissed by the learned Munsiff as per its judgment dated 30.7.2003 and no appeal is preferred against the said judgment and thus the order of dismissal of the suit became final. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. As disclosed from the averments contained in the writ petition and as admitted by the respondents as per its counter affidavit, Ext.P1 order was issued OP NO. 8787 of 2002 :-5-: by the Government on the basis of the request made by the petitioner-Council and that too, after detailed enquiry and report and on the satisfaction of the bonafideness of the request and genuine requirement. It is also beyond dispute that pursuant to Ext.P1 order, the foundation stone was laid on 15.11.2000 and Ext.P3 order impugned was issued on the expiry of two years after Exts.P1 and P2. 5. I have repeatedly perused Ext.P3 to find out on what ground such order was issued. In Ext.P3, though there is a reference to a letter dated 26.6.2001 allegedly issued by the Secretary of the Thiruvananthapuram Public Library Protection Council, but nothing is stated regarding the reason for cancelling Ext.P1 order. Whereas on a perusal of Ext.P1, it can be seen that the sanction was accorded on the basis of the request of the Secretary of the petitioner-Council and also on the basis of the reports and letters of the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after issuing Ext.P1 order, on the basis of the request of the petitioner-Council, the Government had handed over the property in question to the Council as per Ext.P7 and the Government itself constituted a technical committee as per Ext.P8 for the construction and OP NO. 8787 of 2002 :-6-: completion of the project and on the basis of such steps, the project was in progress and Ext.P3 order was issued all of a sudden without any notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry. Ext.P3 order is not a speaking order as no reason is stated for the cancellation of Ext.P1 order. Therefore, according to counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P3 order is issued due to extraneous consideration and that too in violation of all the principles of natural justice. 6. I am not proposed to repeat the facts already mentioned under which Ext.P1 order was issued in favour of the petitioner for the construction of the office complex and the project. The petitioner is a statutory body and Ext.P1 order was issued in the name of such statutory body. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, no reasons for cancelling Ext.P1 order which was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Government are mentioned by the respondents. On a perusal of Ext.P3, nothing can be inferred that such an order was issued on the basis of any abuse of powers or of corruption or any other irregularities. It can also be seen that though in the counter affidavit, it is stated that Ext.P1 order was issued mistakenly, no details are given as to what are the mistakes crept while issuing OP NO. 8787 of 2002 :-7-: Ext.P1 order. It is also relevant to note that while passing Ext.P3 order, no notice was given to the petitioner/council who is the beneficiary of Ext.P1 order and no explanation was called for and no opportunity was given to substantiate their contention in support of Ext.P1 order and also regarding the necessity for such an order. So Ext.P3 order is issued in total violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, Ext.P3 is liable to be set aside, on that count alone. 7. As directed by this Court on 19.2.2007, an additional affidavit was filed for and on behalf of the second respondent and on perusal of the same, it can be seen that the suit, which is referred in the counter affidavit and allegedly filed against the transfer of land in question, was subsequently dismissed by the learned Munsiff while became final. It is also relevant to note that on the basis of Ext.P1, the petitioner-Council has proceeded with project and towards the construction of the building and completion of the project, several steps were taken and Ext.P3 was issued by the Government after two years from Ext.P1 order. Hence Ext.P3 is tainted with arbitrariness. Hence in the absence of valid explanation and reasons in support of Ext.P3, the same is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. Therefore, there is no OP NO. 8787 of 2002 :-8-: reason to issue Ext.P3 cancelling Ext.P1. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P3 is highly arbitrary and illegal and accordingly, the same is quashed. The original petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is entitled to complete the construction and project as permitted by the first respondent as per Ext.P1. V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ OP NO. 8787 of 2002 :-9-: V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.P.NO. 8787 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T DATED: 28-5-2009 OP NO. 8787 of 2002 :-10-: