IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37403 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.K.KRISHNAN NAIR, (PRAKASH MOTORS), KRISHNAVILAS, THODUPUZHA P.O., PIN-685 584, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER H.O.TRANSPORT TOWER, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THALKKADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 014 3. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THODUPUZHA-685 584. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37403 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a landlord of the premises which is occupied by the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, in terms of Ext.P1 agreement, the rent is to be revised in every five years. It is stated that although the PWD authorities have fixed the rent and though proposals for revision of rent from the year 2000 have been submitted before the 2nd respondent, 2nd respondent has not passed any orders on the proposals, as a result of which, the petitioner is not getting revised rent since 2000. It is stated that the same grievance pertains to the excess area occupied by the 3rd respondent also. Petitioner further complains that even the representations made by him have not been answered. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. If as a matter of fact, rent is to be revised every five years at the rate as fixed by the PWD authorities and if PWD authorities have fixed the rent and submitted proposals in that behalf, I see no reason why the 2nd respondent should not have passed orders in the matter. WPC No. 37403/10 :2 : 3. Taking note of the above situation and having regard to the pendency of the representations thus far submitted by the petitioner, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent will consider the issue, and if proposals are awaiting his clearance, necessary orders in that behalf will be passed. This the 2nd respondent shall do at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp