IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 27538 of 2009(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.D.BABY, S/O.DEVASSY, KOLENCHERRY HOUSE, EDANAD KARA, SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O., CHOWARA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. AIRPORT TAXI DRIVERS' SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, S.C, SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.27538 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T An extent of 4 acres of land was acquired for the purpose of Kochi International Airport, Nedumbassery. As per an understanding between the 1st respondent and the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to operate a taxi at the International Airport, Nedumbassery. Petitioner purchased an Ambassador vehicle and his brother K.D. Varghese was given pass for running the taxi on behalf of the petitioner. He had been operating the taxi for the last 10 years. Petitioner has now decided to change the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the respondents are not permitting the petitioner to operate the vehicle on the ground that only holders of pass can be allowed to operate the taxi in the Airport. This is against the settlement between the petitioner and the 1st respondent is the W.P.(C)No.27538 of 2009 -2- petitioner's contention. Therefore he seeks the following reliefs: “a) Call for the records leading upto Ext.P5 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate the vehicle bearing No.KL 41 A 7932 belongs to him in Kochi International Airport.” 2. An elaborate statement has been filed by the 1st respondent. In the same, they take the stand that the petitioner cannot any longer seek to obtain pass in so far as by Ext.R1(a) he had relinquished his right in favour of his brother. As per the system maintained by the 1st respondent for operating taxis in the Airport, a Society by name Airport Taxi Drivers' Society with the eligible drivers as members thereof and only members of that Society are given passes for running taxis in the Airport. Pursuant to Ext.R1(a) relinquishment by the petitioner, the petitioner's brother became a member of the 2nd respondent Society and he was issued with a pass for operating a taxi in the airport. As per the bye-laws of the 2nd respondent-Society the membership W.P.(C)No.27538 of 2009 -3- is not transferable except by succession and therefore the pass now issued to the petitioner's brother pursuant to Ext.R1(a) relinquishment, cannot now be transferred to the petitioner. Further according to them, after raising a claim for change of vehicle, the petitioner now wants his son to be given the pass for operating the taxi, which is also not permissible. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The petitioner does not dispute having executed Ext.R1(a) letter. By executing Ext.R1(a) relinquishment letter, the petitioner has specifically relinquished his right to run a taxi in the Airport in favour of his brother with an undertaking that the petitioner will not raise any further claim in respect thereof before the 1st respondent. That being so, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition at all in so far as he is no longer entitled to raise any claim since he has already relinquished all his rights in favour of his brother. His brother has been given a pass and membership in the 2nd respondent Society. The membership in the W.P.(C)No.27538 of 2009 -4- Society is not transferable. Consequently the pass also cannot be transferred to any other person. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/