IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21896 of 2011(J) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.M.GOPAKUMAR, PANTHAPALACKAL HOUSE, CHIRAKKADAVU P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM-686002 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM-686002 3. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686001 4. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PRIVATE BUS OPERATOR'S ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.609/93, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ASSOCIATION COMPLEX, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, NAGAMBADOM, KOTTAYAM-686001 ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R3 SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R4 SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY FOR R4 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21896 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY DT.29/03/11 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.30/03/11 IN I.A.1037/11 IN O.S.467/10 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.16/06/11 IN I.A.1037/11 IN O.S.467/10 EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THEM UNICIPALITY DT.21/07/11. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY DT.05/08/11. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.04/08/11 EXT.P6(a):-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FOR THE EXT.P6 PETITION. EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ASSOCIATION DT.08/08/10. EXT.P8:- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 08/08/10 MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT C.I. OF POLICE. RESPONDENTS' EXTS EXT.R4:- A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. EXT.R4(a):- PHOTOGRAPH EXT.R4(b):- PHOTOGRAPH EXT.R4(c):- PHOTOGRAPH EXT.R4(d):- PHOTOGRAPH EXT.R4(e):- PHOTOGRAPH EXT.R4(f):- PHOTOGRAPH EXT.R4(g):- PHOTOGRAPH //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.21896 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J Petitioner is the successful bidder of the rights to collect 'Bus Stand Fee' from Buses entering into Nagambadam Bus Stand, in Kottayam Municipality. It is stated that a suit filed by the 4th respondent as O.S.467/10 is pending before the Sub Court, Kottayam, on the issue regarding enhancement of the rate of 'Bus Stand Fee' from ` 10 to ` 15. It is further stated that the issue was considered by this Court on an earlier occasion in a Writ Petition filed. In the judgment of this Court, the parties were relegated to the civil court and directed to abide by the orders of the civil court. However, this court made a provisional fixation of the rate at ` 12.50 and the members of the 4th respondent were W. P. C. No.21896 of 2011 -2- permitted to make payment of the fee at the said rate, subject to further orders of the civil court. 2. It is stated that the civil court had issued an interim order of status quo as evidenced from Ext.P2, on 30/03/11. Subsequently, after hearing both sides, the interim order was vacated as per Ext.P3 dated 16/06/11. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite dismissal of the interim application by the civil court, the members of the 4th respondent are not effecting payment of the 'Bus Stand Fee' at the enhanced rate of ` 20/- as fixed by the 3rd respondent Municipality. It is stated that the 4th respondent is interfering with the rights of the petitioner in collecting such fee from the Bus owners. Even though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 before the authorities of the municipality as well as Exts.P6 and P6(a) complaints before the second respondent, no action is taken. It is further stated that, even though the authorities W. P. C. No.21896 of 2011 -3- of the 3rd respondent had clarified to the second respondent through Exts.P7 and P8 that there is no stay regarding collection of the 'Bus Stand Fee' at the enhanced rates, and requested the second respondent to afford protection to the petitioner to facilitate such collection, the second respondent has not taken any effective steps. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated that the 4th respondent has already applied for a certified copy of Ext.P3 order and that they are taking steps for preferring appeal before the District Court, against Ext.P3. It is also submitted that the District Judge had already initiated a proceedings for mediation settlement, in view of the observations contained in the earlier judgment of this Court, under the provisions of 89(2) of the C. P.C. It is submitted that the mediation steps are ongoing and the W. P. C. No.21896 of 2011 -4- matter now stands posted to 12/10/11. It is contended that the 3rd respondent Municipality is legally entitled to levy the fee only at the rate of ` 12.50/- per Bus per day, pending adjudication of the matter before the competent judicial forums. 4. Considering the rival contentions, we take note of the fact that, as such there is no order issued by any competent court prohibiting collection of the 'Bus Stand Fee' by the petitioner at the enhanced rate fixed by the 3rd respondent Municipality. However, we take note of the fact that in an earlier judgment of this court in W.P.C.10959/07 a provisional arrangement was made to collect the fee at the rate of ` 12.50/- subject to further orders from the civil court. It is also noticed that an interim order on the same line was prevailing till Ext.P3. Sri.Mathew John, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that immediate W. P. C. No.21896 of 2011 -5- steps will be taken to challenge Ext.P3 order by filing miscellaneous appeal before the District Court, as and when the certified copy of Ext.P3 order is obtained, for which a copy application has already been filed. He seeks indulgence of this Court to permit continuation of the status quo till the filing of the appeal. 5. Taking note of the entire aspects of the issue, we are inclined to permit continuation of the interim arrangement till 30/09/2011, in order to facilitate the 4th respondent to seek appropriate relief from the appellate court. Needless to clarify that the issue will be governed by terms of interim order or final orders if any passed by the appellate court. Till such time such orders are issued or till 30/09/2011, whichever is earlier the members of the 4th respondent should pay 'Bus Stand Fee' at the rate of ` 12.50/- per Bus per day. We further clarify that they will be liable for W. P. C. No.21896 of 2011 -6- payment of fee at the enhanced rate of ` 20/-, if no order is obtained from the appellate court within the time stipulated as above. If there is any obstruction regarding collection of the Bus Stand Fee by the petitioner at rates as stipulated above, then necessary steps shall be taken by the second respondent to afford protection, in order to facilitate such collection. 6. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.21896 of 2011 -7-