IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 27287 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THANKAPPAN.N., KUTTITHARA PADINJATTATHIL, SAKTHIKULANGARA P.O., KAVANAD, KOLLAM-3. 2. SHAMSUDDIN.E., KOLLOPADINJATTATHIL, PALAKKAL, THEVALAKKARA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DIVISION, SAKTHIKULANGARA. ** 4. SHRI.VIJAYAKUMAR, SITE CONVENOR, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DIVISION, KOLLAM. (** DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.07 IN IA No.16774/07) R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.TEK CHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 27287/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP NO.13143/93 DATED 24.6.94. EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF SHED. EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF STALL. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP NO.7880/01 DATED 20.2.06. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.10.06 FROM THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP NO.24993/01 DATED 10.12.01. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 27287 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners and 15 others who were evicted in 1980 for the construction of Sakthikulangara portion of Neendakara Harbour. Petitioners claim that at the time of their eviction they were assured that they would be suitably rehabilitated. Since they were not so rehabilitated, the petitioners and others approached this Court by filing OP No.7880/01 which resulted in Ext.P4 judgment. In that judgment this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam to look into the grievances of the petitioners with notice to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, pursuant to that judgment a notice of hearing, Ext.P5, was also issued and a hearing was conducted. But no orders were passed. Some other persons who were similarly affected, approached this Court by filing OP No.24993/01 in which Ext.P6 judgment was passed, wherein the assurance of the Government Pleader that unauthorised persons would not be permitted to occupy the area reserved for the petitioners and others to the prejudice and interests of the persons WPC : 27287/07 -:2:- like the petitioners was recorded. Despite the above happenings, petitioners submit that in the 17 stalls constructed subsequently, which were intended for allotment to the petitioners and others, strangers were accommodated, whereas the petitioners were accommodated in temporary sheds. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. to call for the entire records leading to Ext.P5 and; ii. to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to refrain from permitting outsiders to enter Sakthikulangara portion of Neendakara Fishing Harbour for the supply of tea and snacks there. iii. to direct the respondents not to go ahead with the action to call for tenders to supply baskets and mats in Sakthikulangara portion of Harbour.” 2. A statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent which reads thus: “It is submitted that all the allegations and prayer of the petitioner is almost the same as that of OP No.7880/1, filed by Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai and others which was disposed by this Hon'ble Court by Ext.P4 by directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam to look into the grievances of the petitioners and to take appropriate action in accordance with law in the matter. Sri.N.Thankappan and Sri.Shamsudeen A were the 4th and 10th WPC : 27287/07 -:3:- petitioner of OP No.7880/01 respectively. This case was heard by the Revenue Divisional Officer and is awaiting orders. 2. It is submitted that we had been inviting tenders annually for the right of sale of basket and mat in the Sakthikulangara and Neendakara side of Neendakara Fishing Harbour for the last 10 years. We had invited tenders this year too for the right of selling basket and mat in the Sakthikulangara side and Neendakara side. For the right of seeling basket and mat in the Sakthikulangara side of this year, P.Albert, Madathail Kizhakkethil House, Sakthikulangara offered Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per annum as the higher bidder of the tender and executed agreement with him vide agreement No.16/06-07/NF dated 06.03.07. 3. It is true that the photo marked as Ext.P2 is of shops constructed at the Sakthikulangara side of Neendakara Fishing Harbour. The shops are constructed with brick masonry and AC sheets. The petitioner's allegation that theywere accommodated only in temprorary shed whereas the unauthorised petty traders were accommodated in the permanent shed, is not true to the facts. Because the photograph marked as Ext.P2 is the type of shops allocated for the other eighteen traders, the unauthorised occupants, as claimed by the petitioners. There is no other type of construction made for allocation of these petty traders. In fact the shops were allotted to them and the rent for the same was ficed as per the direction of the Court in Ext.P1.” 3. I have heard both sides. Ext.P5 notice of hearing was issued on 11.10.06. In the statement filed on 20.11.07, there is no mention as to what happened thereafter. Today when the matter WPC : 27287/07 -:4:- was taken up, on the basis of telephonic instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits that no final orders have been passed yet. This is a sad situation. I do not want to make any further comments on the same, insofar as the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the RDO may be directed to pass orders in the matter after considering all the grievances of the petitioners. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass orders as contemplated in Ext.P4, taking into account the grievances mentioned in Ext.P4 as well as other grievances of the petitioners, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb