IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36440 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TRIVANDRUM GOLF CLUB, REP. BY ITS HON'BLE SECRETARY, SRI.S.N.RAGHUCHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, T.C.5/2314 & 2315, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.K.C.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.ADV.GENERAL SHRI RANJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 37763 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). Nos.36440/2009-Y & 37763/2009-M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T W.P.(C).No.36440/2009 has been filed by the Trivandrum Golf Club represented by its Secretary and W.P.(C). No.37763/2009 is filed at the instance of the two members of the Trivandrum Golf Club. 2. W.P.(C).No.36440/2009 is the leading case wherein the challenge is against Ext.P18 order passed by the Government dated 26/11/2009. As per the above order, it was held that the deemed licence agreement between the Government and the Trivandrum Golf Club shall be terminated with immediate effect. There is a further direction to the District Collector to initiate steps to resume 25.38 acres of Government Land comprised in Survey Nos.2/2, 2/5, 227/2- 3, 250/2, 250/1-3 and 256/3 of Peroorkada Village, Thiruvananthapuram and evict the Trivandrum Golf Club from Government land after giving them one month's time to vacate the premises, from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The petitioner, as plaintiff, has approached the Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram along with an application under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ext.P20 is the copy of the plaint and, the W.P.(C). Nos.36440/2009 and 37763/2009 -:2:- application filed under Section 80(2) of C.P.C is numbered as I.A. No.9540/2009. 3. In the light of the subsequent developments, I am not going into the various details. It is stated that against the order passed in I.A. No.9540/2009, C.R.P.No.676/2009 was filed by the petitioner which has been disposed of by this Court vacating the order passed by the Subordinate Judges Court. The plaintiff, namely, the Golf Club has resubmitted the plaint along with an application for sanction of leave under Section 80(2) of the C.P.C. 4. When the matter came up for hearing on 23/12/2009, this Court recorded the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.36440/2009 that “in view of the petitioner's intention to proceed with the civil suit in relation to which a C.R.P is stated to have been heard today, the relief No.(a) may be left open for consideration in the suit.” 5. Therefore, now, as the entire matter including the grant of leave is open for consideration by the Sub Court in the Civil Suit, the learned Senior Counsel Shri T.Krishnanunni appearing for the petitioner pointed out that in the light of the time limit fixed in Ext.P18 order, there may be an attempt to resume the property without W.P.(C). Nos.36440/2009 and 37763/2009 -:3:- giving sufficient notice. It is pointed out that, that will frustrate the remedy of the petitioner to obtain any favourable interim orders from the Trial Court. My attention is also invited to the findings rendered by this Court in Ext.P10 Judgment. 6. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State. It is submitted that since the petitioner has approached the Civil Court, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the matter, as the entire matter has to be decided by the Subordinate Judge's Court. It is also submitted that, if any such interim orders are passed by this Court, that may weigh with the Trial Court. Therefore, such an advantage may not be conferred on the petitioner. 7. Since this writ petition is not liable to be entertained by this Court as the Civil Suit has to be proceeded with, what is important is to see whether the status quo has to be maintained for enabling the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for getting any interim order. Now, since the C.R.P has been disposed of allowing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court again, it is only proper in the fitness of things to maintain the status quo atleast, till the matter is heard by the Trial Court. True, that this Court at this stage will not be justified W.P.(C). Nos.36440/2009 and 37763/2009 -:4:- in entertaining this writ petition, still considering the various aspects pointed out by the petitioner as well as the previous proceedings between the parties, and in view of the directions in Ext.P18 order, there will be a direction to maintain status quo as regards the Club and its properties for a period of one week to enable the petitioner to move the Trial Court for passing appropriate orders. It is made clear that the Trial Court will consider the matters untrammelled by the observations made herein and the arrangement made by this Court in this Judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. W.P.(C).No.37763/2009 This writ petition has become unnecessary in the light of the Judgment in W.P.(C).No.36440/2009. Leaving open the contentions raised by the petitioner herein, the writ petition is closed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms