IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 17587 of 2006(R) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.G.A GROUP OF COMPANIES, FLAT NO.6B, MANGALAM TOWER, BYEPASS ROAD, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. THOMAS VARGHESE. 2. THOMAS VARGHESE, DIRECTOR, KGA GROUP OF COMPANIES, FLAT NO.6B, MANGALAM TOWER, BYEPASS ROAD, KOCHI. BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.ALPHONS, SMT.SIMLA PRABHAKARAN, SRI.ARUN ALEX. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KOCHI. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. P.A. RAZIYA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.17587/2006: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/01/05 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DTD. 04/03/05. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 29/04/05 WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. AND THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE R.2. EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF 26 KEYS. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THEN HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DTD. 30/06/05. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REQUEST GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.3. DTD. 12/02/06. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17587 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Company. When the Tsunami disaster struck the Kerala coast during December 2004, the petitioner Company as a good Samaritan offered to construct 26 houses for rehabilitating Tsunami victims. The Government, by Ext.P1, selected the petitioner for such construction and authorised the petitioner to construct the same. Ext.P1, which reads as follows: “You are hereby authorised to construct 26 houses in Edavanakkad Village under the technical guidance of GCDA, Kochi. the list of beneficiaries shall be provided by Tahsildar, Kochi. Government contribution @ Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) per houses will be paid on receipt of the amount from government.” The petitioner constructed the houses and handed over the keys to the District Administration. But, the promised amount has not been paid to the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: W.P.(C)No.17587/06 2 “i) Call for the records in the above case; ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding respondent No.4 to release the amount of Government contribution to the 26 houses constructed and completed by the 1st petitioner company, forthwith; iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, commanding the 4th respondent to file a report before this Hon'ble Court with regard to the diversion of the funds received by it on various heads, for some other purposes.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, which reads as follows: “xxx xxx xxx 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction in the nature of mandamus to command the 4th respondent to release the amount Government contribution to the 26 houses constructed and completed by the petitioner Company, forthwith and also to file a report regarding the diversion of the funds received on various heads. 3. All the averments in the writ petition save those, which are expressly admitted hereunder, are denied. 4. Averments in grounds C, D & E submitted that petitioner has constructed 26 houses in Ernakulam District on the lands allotted by the Government. 4055 houses were required for re- habitation Tsunami victims in Kerala and the construction was allotted to 31 non- governmental organisations, who came forward voluntarily for the construction of houses for Tsunami victims. 5. It is true that the petitioner was authorized by Ext.P1 to construct 26 houses. 6. It is also admitted that the keys of 26 houses were handover to the District Administration as seen Ext.P3. Ext.P1 was W.P.(C)No.17587/06 3 issued to the petitioner on 19.1.2005. But later on 17.3.05 there was the conference were the matter regarding to the Subsidy was also discussed. It is submitted that in the meeting held on 17.3.2005 it was decided not to give subsidy to the voluntary organisation. Copy of the minutes of the conference dated 17.3.2005 is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R3(a).” 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The respondents do not dispute Ext.P1, wherein the respondent District Collector has promised the petitioner that the petitioner would be paid Rs.50,000/- for the 26 houses. I do not think that after getting the houses constructed with a promise to pay Rs.50,000/- for each house, which houses have been taken over by the respondents, the respondents can deny the promised amount to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to see that the amounts promised by Ext.P1 is paid to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.17587/06 4 W.P.(C)No.17587/06 5