IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 3551 of 1999(W) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL), ERNAKULAM, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., ERNAKULAM TERRITORY OFFICE, DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. TAHSILEAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS: 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 6. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM CENTRAL GOVT. SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. (R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN CMP.NO.12495/06 DTD.16.3.01) (R6 IMPLEADED AS PER SUO MOTU ORDER ON 20.10.08) SRI. VIJU THOMAS GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.P.K.BABU FOR R1 TO R5 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R6 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.3551/99. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DTD.5.3.1968. P2. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.10.2.86. P3. COPY OF THE OBJECTION. P4. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.10.4.86. P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.30.10.87. P6. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.19.10.93 BEFORE R1 TO R3. P7. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.19.9.93 BEFORE R1 TO R3. P8. COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.29.11.93 BY R3. P9. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.5.6.98 IN O.P.NO.16473/93 OF THIS COURT. P10. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.28.7.98. P11. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.31.8.98. P12. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.3.1.2001. P13. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.15.3.03. P14. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.15.12.06. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.3551 of 1999 ================== Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T This original petition raises a dispute between the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), a company owned by the Government of India, and the State of Kerala, regarding the lease rent payable by the BPCL to the State Government in respect of the premises leased to the petitioner between 1.4.1986 to 12.11.1995. The amounts now demanded from the BPCL runs into crores. The State Government and the Central Government owned company are fighting each other for decades now. I am of opinion that such issues between Government entities should not be dragged to a court of law and should be resolved at the Government level itself and if necessary, the concerned Governments should constitute a high power committee to decide the issue. In this view, I am supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPN. LTD. v. CITY & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MAHARASHTRA LTD. AND OTHERS [2007 (7) SCC 39]. In that case, referring to earlier judgments of the Supreme Court on the same subject, the o.p.3551/99 2 Supreme Court expressed the opinion that it is neither appropriate nor permissible for two departments of a State or the Union of India to fight litigation in a court of law. In that case, earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector [(2003) 3 SCC 472] and ONGC (I) v. CCE [1992 Supp.(2) SCC 432] directing Central Government to set up a committee consisting of various representatives to resolve the dispute to ensure that no litigation comes to the court or to a tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation, were affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also referred to the decision in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, CBDT [(2004) 6 SCC 431]. Ultimately, in that decision, the Supreme Court directed that a committee be formed to sort out the differences between the Central Government and the State Government entities consisting of following persons. “(1) The Cabinet Secretary of the Union; (2) Chief Secretary of the State; (3) Secretaries of the departments concerned of the Union and the States; and (4) Chief Executive Officers of the undertakings o.p.3551/99 3 concerned”. 2. I am of opinion that in this case also the Central Government and the State Government should form a high power committee consisting of the following persons for resolving the dispute between the Government of Kerala and the BPCL. In this case, the combination of that committee shall be; 1. Cabinet Secretary of the Union; 2. Chief Secretary of the State; 3. Secretaries of the Departments concerned of the Union Government and the Government of Kerala; 4. The Chief Executive of the BPCL; and 5. The District Collector, Ernakulam. 3. In view of the fact that this matter has been pending ever since 1986, it is only appropriate that the committee takes a decision on the dispute within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 4. The learned Assistant Solicitor General who appears on behalf of the Union of India who has been suo motu impleaded by me for this specific purpose, shall communicate the decision of this Court to the Government of India. Needless to say, till the o.p.3551/99 4 high power committee takes a decision, no coercive proceedings shall be initiated against the BPCL for realisation of the amounts in dispute. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge