IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 114 of 2008 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.30829/2007 DATED 14/12/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------ 1. JOSEPH, THUNDIPARAMBU HOUSE, PALLINADA ROAD, MARADU. 2. YUSEF, S/O.VAVA, KATTUPURATHU HOUSE, KUTHAPPADI, KOCHI-32. 3. HAMSA, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, KATTAPPALLIPARAMBIL, THAMMANAM, KOCHI. 4. P.O.LONAPPAN, S/O.OUSEPH, PADASSERI HOUSE, B.M.C. P.O, KOCHI-21. 5. B.L.CLEETUS, S/O.LASAN, BAVAKKADU HOUSE, P.O.PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. 6. T.N.SANADHANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KATTUMPURATHU HOUSE, THEVARA COLONY, PERUMANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHENNAI-27. 2. THE COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHI. W.A. NO. 114/2008: 3. THE SENIOR AERODROME OFFICER COCHIN CIVIL ENCLAVE, NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, W/ISLAND, KOCHI. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 5. A.K.CHANDRAN, S/O.KESAVAN, KANNOTHPARAMBIL HOUSE, VYTTILA P.O., PONNURUNNI, KOCHI. 6. M.T.JOHN, S/O.THOMAS, MATTAMMACHIRAYIL HOUSE, THOPPUMPADY P.O., COCHIN-5. 7. P.C.PAUL, POTHAMPALLY HOUSE, NAMBYAPURA ROAD, PALLURUTHI, COCHIN-6. 8. T.K.KOYA, S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, THANATHPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHI, KOCHI-6 9. P.S.NANDANAN, PADINJARENIKATHIL HOUSE, PAI ROAD, PERUMBADAPPU, PALLURUTHI, KOCHI. 10. R.M.UMMAR, RAMARACKAL HOUSE, A.K.G.ROAD, NAMBIAPURAM, PALLURUTHI, KOCHI-6 11. P.S.SHAMSUDEEN, S/O.MUHAMMED, KALAMBATTU HOUSE, MARUVANTHURUTHU, VAIKOM. 12. K.A.JOHN, S/O.ANTHAPPAN, KIZHAPPALLY HOUSE, PANANGADU P.O., COCHIN-13 13. P.T.DEVASSI, PUTHANVEEDU, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-16 14. T.A.MANI, THEKKETHALATH HOUSE, MELKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, KANDANADU P.O., KUREEKADU. 15. A.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KUMARAN, ANJALI BHAVAN, MANNIPARAMBIL ROAD, MARADU P.O. 16. M.S.PRAKASAN, MANKAMADAM, PALLURUTHI, KOCHI-6. 17. R.SADANSANDAN, P.D.ROAD, PALLURUTHI, COCHIN-6. W.A. NO. 114/2008: *ADDL.R.18 IMPLEADED: 18. K.J. YESUDAS, S/O. JOSEPH, KOCHUPARAMBIL, SILPASALA ROAD, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA.P.O., ERNAKULAM , VICE PRESIDENT, ERNAKULAM TAX DRIVERS UNION, REGISTRATION NO. 472/73, CANNON SHED ROAD, ERNAKULAM. *ADDL.R.18 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 17/10/08 IN I.A. NO. 255/08. **ADDL.RESPONDENTS 19 TO 21 IMPLEADED: 19. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. E/998, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI. DINESH KUMAR.C. 20. PAUL JACOB, AREECKAL, MEKKADAMBU.P.O. 3. ELDHO YOHANNAN, PALLIKKARAN, NAYATHODE.P.O. **ADDL. RESPONDENTS 19 TO 21 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/01/2009 IN I.A. NO. 976/2008. R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA, R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.),S.C, SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC, R5 BY SRI.K.B.SURESH, ADDL.R.18 BY ADVS. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.), SRI.SAJU.S.A , SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL, ADDL. R.19 TO 21 BY ADVS .SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) , SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SMT.MARIAM MATHAI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 6273 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B.KOSHY,Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J -------------------------------- W.P.(C)s.33423, 18472, 19673, 35760 & 6273 of 2008 & W.A.114 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this 20th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy (Ag.C.J.) Writ petitioners were running taxi service in the erstwhile Cochin Airport. They lost their livelihood when the Cochin International Airport at Nedumbassery was started and the Cochin Airport in the Naval Yard was closed. The Cochin Airport is controlled by the Cochin International Airport authority. Petitioners were not given passes to run taxi in the Nedumbassery Airport. Earlier they approached this Court and by Ext.P1 judgment in O.P.No.24605/1999 and connected case, the matter was considered and disposed of. At the time of judgment, 287 passes were issued and they were issued to two categories, first to those persons who lost their houses and second to those who lost their land by acquisition of property for the establishment of the Airport. In Ext.P1 judgment it was stated that while considering the third W.A.114/2008 & W.P.(C).33423/2008 and Connected Cases 2 category for others, the case of taxi drivers should be given priority. The operative portion of Ext.P1 judgment reads as follows:- In the circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that some preference also should be given to ex-taxi drivers of CochinAirport. Since 287 passes were issued to category I and II only when further taxi permits are given, their claim also should be considered and no other new permit shall be given overlooking the claims of ex-taxi drivers of the Cochin Airport and the ex-taxi drivers of Cochin Airport should be considered under the third category 'others'. 2. It is submitted that 100 passes were decided to be issued by the Airport Authorities. Applications were called. It was decided that 20 passes out of 100, can be given to the ex-taxi drivers. Out of 80 applicants, 50 persons were called for the interview. But only 11 satisfied the conditions prescribed by the authorities. W.A.114/2008 & W.P.(C).33423/2008 and Connected Cases 3 3. Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 30829/2007 (W.A.114/2008) approached this Court challenging the conditions prescribed by the authorities and also aggrieved by the proposed issuance of taxi passes without following the procedure of selection. But that was not accepted by the learned single Judge who found that the petitioners did not satisfy the eligibility conditions of the ownership of taxi cars and hence, they filed the writ appeal. 4. Writ Petition N.33423/2008 was filed by a former taxi driver contending that his application was rejected only because he was not able to produce proper I.D.Card. But it is his case that subsequently, he produced 'A' class I.D.Card with Badge No.1000/77 vide proceedings No.D2(b)-19402/08 EC dated 20.6.2008, as evidenced by Ext.P6. Therefore, he should be given the pass, it is contended. Other writ petitioners were also not selected and they also challenged the conditions prescribed by the authorities. One of the conditions W.A.114/2008 & W.P.(C).33423/2008 and Connected Cases 4 prescribed was that the taxi car produced by them should be a car less than five years old. It is their case that they are taxi drivers and they are unable to raise money especially because they had no serious business. It is also contended that some of them are not even holding a taxi. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at present 384 taxies are running, passes are given and most of the drivers have purchased cars by taking loans and they themselves are not getting sufficient numbers of passengers. 5. We have considered the contentions raised by both sides. Now it is contended by the writ petitioners that they are prepared to comply with the conditions prescribed by the authority. In the event it is stated that when the authority decided to issue 100 passes, 20 were reserved for ex-taxi drivers. Only 11 were given passes and the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.33423/2008 was denied pass only because of technical fault. So we direct that the writ petitioner in Writ Petition W.A.114/2008 & W.P.(C).33423/2008 and Connected Cases 5 No.33423/2008 should be given pass provided he satisfies all conditions, which were decided by the authority earlier. Other petitioners also should be given a further opportunity, if they have not already been given, by the respondents. If further taxi permits are available in future, beyond the above number, at that time, directions in Ext.P1 judgment should be considered. Appeal and writ petitions are disposed of as above. J.B.KOSHY, Acting Chief Justice V.GIRI, Judge mrcs