IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 25552 of 2003(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PERUMON REFRACTORY LAND OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REG.NO.631/86, PERUMON P.O., PERINAD, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT K.SADASIVAN PILLAI, SHINE NIVAS, PERUMON, PERINAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, CO-OPERATIVE SECTOR BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HIGH TECH COIR PARK, PERUMON, PERINAD, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJ KUMAR SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.N.RAGHURAJ FOR R4 SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25552 of 2003(Y) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 17.05.1989 EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD DATED 24.10.1989 EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.9.2001 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.9.2001 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2001 IN O.P.NO. 31040/01 ISSUED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C/195/2002/CAPE/203 DATED 23.1.2002 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN O.P.NO.31040/01. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R3(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.80/2000/ID DATED 24.6.2000 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.R3(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 26.8.2000 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 25552 of 2003 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 17, 2008 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, an order passed by the 3rd respondent in pursuance to Ext.P5 judgment of this Court in OP 31040/2001. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is an association of people who were evicted following the land acquisition proceedings that was initiated by the 1st respondent for the establishment of an industrial unit by name Kerala Special Refractories Ltd., a joint venture between the State of Kerala and the Steel Authority of India Ltd. 3. At the acquisition stage, claims were raised by the evictees and their dependents for employment opportunities in the factory that was to be eventually established. That led to various discussions and Ext.P1 is the minutes of the discussions that took place on 11.5.1989. In that meeting WP(C) 25552/03 2 the then Managing Director of the Kerala Special Refractories Ltd. made a commitment that subject to the rules of appointment, one member of the family or dependent will be given preference in appointment. It is stated that in pursuance to Ext.P1 minutes, a list of the beneficiaries was prepared and identity cards were also issued. Ext.P2 is referred to by the petitioner as an identity card that was issued. It would appear that in the meantime, as the project did not materialise, by Ext.R3(a), the property was transferred to respondents 3 and 4. Ext.R3(a) makes it clear that respondents 3 and 4 will abide by whatever terms and conditions that are fixed by the Government on the transfer of land later on. 4. On the allegation that despite all that has taken place and the setting up of their establishments by the 3rd and the 4th respondents, the promise made in Ext.P1 was not kept, Ext.P3 representation was made by the petitioner. Thereupon, the District Collector issued Ext.P5 wherein it WP(C) 25552/03 3 was stated inter alia that the petitioners could stake their claims against respondents 3 and 4, the new managements. 5. Even thereafter, as the grievance of the petitioners were not redressed, they approached this Court by filing OP 31040/2001which was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment. In that original petition, the District Collector had filed a statement, which is produced as Ext.P7. In paragraph 6 of the statement it was stated that advance possession of the land was handed over to respondents 3 and 4 on condition that they will abide by whatever conditions that are fixed by the Government. It was also stated that the petitioners can take up their grievances with the new management when they are established and that any such claim can be only subject to the terms and conditions of appointment of respondents 3 and 4. Taking note of this statement also, by Ext.P5 judgment, the original petition was disposed of directing that the 2nd respondent therein (3rd respondent in this writ petition) shall consider and pass orders on the WP(C) 25552/03 4 representation made by the petitioners after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. In pursuance to Ext.P5, 3rd respondent considered the representation and passed Ext.P6 rejecting the claim of the petitioners. In Ext.P6, the stand taken by the 3rd respondent is that they have no obligation to honour the terms of Ext.P1 in any manner and that the evictees or their dependents are not entitled to any benefit from them. It is challenging Ext.P6, this writ petition has been filed. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it is stated that they are not in any way bound by Ext.P4, although they have, in paragraph 6 of the affidavit, admitted that the land in question has been transferred to them for the establishment of an engineering college. 7. Thus, while the petitioners assert their claim for employment as against the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent in the affidavit states that it has no obligation WP(C) 25552/03 5 whatsoever to honour the terms of Ext.P1 and the correctness of this stand of the 3rd respondent is what is required to be resolved in this writ petition. 8. In my view, respondents 3 and 4 cannot get themselves wriggled out of the obligation created by Ext.P1 for reasons more than one. In Ext.P1, the minutes of the meeting held on 11.5.1989, the Managing Director of Kerala Special Refractories Ltd. committed that subject to the rules of recruitment, evictees or their dependents will be given preference in the matter of appointment. When the establishment of Kerala Special Refractories Ltd. did not materialise, though belatedly, the land in question was transferred to respondents 3 and 4 by Ext.R3(a). Ext.R3(a) also incorporates a condition that the transfer shall be subject to the conditions that are fixed by the Government. It was subsequent to Ext.R3(a) that the District Collector wrote to the petitioners by Ext.P4 that they can raise their claims against respondents 3 and 4 as and when they are WP(C) 25552/03 6 established. It was still later that in Ext.P7 statement filed in this Court, the District Collector again affirmed the stand that the petitioners can take up their grievance with the new management when they are established. It was accepting this stand of the District Collector that Ext.P5 judgment was rendered by this Court. To Ext.P5, the 3rd respondent was a party and that interparty judgment has to become final and binding. Thus, respondents 3 and 4, are equally bound by the commitment given in Ext.P1 and are obliged to give preference to the evictees or their dependents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are entitled to appointment under respondents 3 and 4. I am not in a position to accept this plea. A combined reading of Exts.P1, P4 and P5 shows that the only commitment that was given was that subject to the rules of the establishments, they will give preference to the evictees or their dependents. The rule of preference only means WP(C) 25552/03 7 that other things being equal, the evictees or their dependents will be preferred and nothing more. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioners that they are entitled to appointment, cannot be accepted. At the same time, the stand of the respondents that they are not bound by the commitment given in Ext.P1 also cannot be accepted. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P6 and directing that in the matter of appointment, the evictees or their dependents shall be entitled to preference in the establishments of respondents 3 and 4, subject to their rules of recruitment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-