IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31235 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KANCHANA PUSHPAKARAN, W/O.PUSHPAKARAN, KOKKATHARA HOUSE, EDAKKUNNU, KAMBIVALAPPIL, PADUVAPURAM P.O., VIA KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE SRI.M.C.ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD., NEDUMBASSERY. 2. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TAXI CO-OP.SOCIETY, NEDUMBASSERY. 3. PRAVEEN, S/O.VASU, MADATHETTUKUDY, CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL P.O., VIA KALADY. ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC, COCHIN AIRPORT LTD FOR R1, 2 SRI.N.RAGHURAJ FOR R3 ADV.N.N.SUGUNAPALAM, SR.COUNSEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 31235/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.31.5.99 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO.II K.I.A. ANGAMALY. P2. COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER DTD.25.9.06. P3. COPY OF THE TREATMENT FORM ISSUED TO THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER FROM AMRITHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES. P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.25.1.07 BEFORE R1. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.31235 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the wife of one Sri.Pushpakaran. They owned certain lands which were acquired for the Cochin International Airport. The petitioner alleges that there was an agreement between the 1st respondent and the persons whose lands were acquired for the Airport, for providing employment in the airport for the evictees and to give taxi permits for plying taxies from the airport. The petitioner alleges that in view of the said agreement, the petitioner's husband was eligible for either a job or a taxi permit. Neither was given. Later on she came to understand that the 3rd respondent had obtained a taxi permit, which, according to the petitioner, was misrepresenting that the petitioner's husband had consented to grant a taxi permit to the 3rd respondent, who is nephew of her husband. According to the petitioner, her husband had never given any consent to issue a taxi permit to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records relating to this case; (ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to give employment to the petitioner under the Airport Authority or to issue taxi permit in her name as agreed by the 1st respondent at the time of acquisition. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or w.p.c.31235/07 2 direction directing the respondents 1 & 2 to cancel the taxi permit issued to the 3rd respondent by way of misrepresentation and to conduct an enquiry into that; (iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction ordering an enquiry in to the fraud or misrepresentation exerted by the 3rd respondent resulting in the denial of employment/taxi permit to the petitioner's family by any of independent agency as this Hon'ble Court deem fit.” 2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated thus: “2. An extent of 11.55 Acres of landing [sic] the name of Mr.Pushpakaran, husband of the petitioner, was acquired for the construction of the Cochin International Airport, as per LAC No.180/1995. The petitioner submits that the property in the name of her husband was acquired for the construction of the Airport and they have not received any employment benefit or Taxi permit so far. As regards employment benefits, it is submitted that the Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL for short) has a recruitment policy and as per the recruitment procedure adopted by CIAL whenever vacancies arise, applications are invited by giving wide publicity through advertisements in leading newspapers. Based on the prescribed criteria, applications are shortlised and written test and interview are conducted and final selection is made. 3. CIAL's policy for employment provides that evictees would be given preference subject to other conditions being equal, ie., they will have to fulfill the qualification criteria stipulated by the company for the post, pass the written test/physical test if any, and attend the interview. Whenever applications are invited for a post, general candidates as well as evictees have to submit their applications in the prescribed format along with supporting documents within the prescribed time limit in order to be considered for the post. The petitioner has not specified whether she has submitted applications earlier for any post in the Airport. 4. As regards issued [sic] of Taxi permits, decision was taken by the Board of the Directors of Cochin International Airport Ltd., to issue Taxi permits to those who lost their houses and land during land acquisition for the Airport in order to provide a livelihood to the evictees. A Co-operative Society, namely 'Cochin International Airport Taxi Operators' Co-operative Society Ltd.', was formed in June 1999. As per the bye-law of the Society, first preference for membership in the Society is to be given to those who lost their houses during land acquisition for the Airport, second preference to those who lost their land and third preference to others. Applications were invited from evictees and by October, 1999, 284 number of passes were issued to ply Taxis from the Airport. w.p.c.31235/07 3 5. Taxi permit was issued to Mr.Praveen M.V., Madathethukudy House, in June, 1999 based on his application for the same submitted along with Land Acquisition Certificate No.180/1995 and consent letter from Mr.Pushpakaran. In the consent letter Mr.Pushpakaran, LAC Holder (husband of the petitioner) had requested that as he was an ailing person and had no children, the benefit may be given to Mr.Praveen, his nephew. Mr.Pushpakaran had also submitted in the consent letter that there will not be any complaint from his side in this regard in future. Copy of the consent letter submitted by Mr.Pushapakaran is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a). True copy of the application for Taxi permit submitted by Shri.Praveen.M.V., is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(b). Hence the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner's husband never consented to give employment or Taxi permit to Mr.Praveen, is not true. In the circumstances, the above writ petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs.” 3. I have considered the rival contentions. 4. I had specifically asked the counsel for the petitioner to satisfy this Court as to the right of evictees for getting either employment or taxi permit, when they had already received compensation for the land acquired. The counsel could not give any satisfactory answer. The contention now put forward is that the petitioner's husband at that time was a cancer patient and bed ridden. During the pendency of the writ petition he died also. The petitioner points out that the petitioner had filed Ext.P4 representation before the 1st respondent clearly stating that her husband had never given any consent for issue of taxi permit to the 3rd respondent. Alongwith the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent has produced a consent letter of the petitioner's husband produced by the 3rd respondent. That counter affidavit itself was filed on 28.11.2007. Till date no reply affidavit has w.p.c.31235/07 4 been filed. No averment is forthcoming from the petitioner to the effect that the signature in Ext.R1(a) letter of consent is not that of the petitioner's husband. The petitioner's husband who was alive at the time of filing the writ petition did not also come forward to state that he had not given any consent to the 3rd respondent. In the above circumstances, although I sympathise with the petitioner, I do not think that any relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge