IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21684 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY LAW OFFICER,SRI.RANJITH JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. RESPONDENT: ------------------- K.R.LEKHA,KUNJALUMMOODU VEEDU, KOONTHALLOOR,CHIRAYINKEEZH.P.O. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: app/- V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 21684 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of August 2009. JUDGMENT The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has filed this writ petition challenging an order passed by the Lok Ayukta directing the Corporation to refund to the complainant, namely, the respondent herein an amount of Rs.60,353/-. 2. The husband of the respondent was a licencee authorized to conduct business in a fruit stall at Attingal Bus Station for the period from 01.09.2003 to 31.08.2006. A deed of licence was also executed in this behalf. It seems that, after intimation, he had stopped conducting business in the stall on 10.08.2005. There was a request for refund of the licence fee for the unutilized portion of the period of licence. The Corporation agreed to refund an amount of Rs.27,014/-. The complainant claimed that the amount due is higher. It is accordingly that a complaint was filed before the Lok Ayukta. The stand taken by the Corporation before the Lok Ayukta was that, it is entitled to get licence fee till 23.02.2006, the date on which the husband of W.P.(C). No. 21684 OF 2009 2 the complainant passed away. The Lok Ayukta did not accept the stand. The Lok Ayukta perused the files and found that the licencee had submitted a representation intimating closure of the shop with effect from 10.08.2005. Accordingly, the Lok Ayukta found that the Corporation is only entitled to get licence fee for 23 months and 10 days which comes up to an amount of Rs.2,17,833/-. Taking note of the fact that an amount of Rs.3,05,200/- had already been paid by the licencee, the Lok Ayukta directed the Corporation to pay an amount of Rs.60,353/-. It is this order that has been challenged in the writ petition. 3. I heard learned Counsel for the Corporation. On a perusal of Ext.P4, it can be see that the Lok Ayukta has correctly taken note of the fact that the erstwhile licencee had practically surrendered the premises on 10.08.2005. An intimation was also contemporaneously given. In such circumstances, it would have been unjust for the Corporation to recover any amount as licence fee in relation to the period subsequent to 10.08.2005. The direction for refund of the excess amount already remitted was therefore perfectly justified. W.P.(C). No. 21684 OF 2009 3 I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P4. The writ petition is devoid of merits and hence dismissed. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/