IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32477 of 2006(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.MUTHUKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, BALACHANDRA OIL INDUSTRIES, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.HARUN-AL-RASHID SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, TDB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:\ 2 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER THE DEVASWOM BOARD. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE GENERAL/SPECIAL CONDITIONS. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TDB CHALLAN ISSUED BY THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK DATED 30.10.2004 EXT.P4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE SUB ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, VADASSERIKKARA. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 8.7.2005 GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 7518 OF 2006 DATED 14.3.2006 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN RP NO. 328 OF 2006 IN WPC 7518 OF 2006 DATED 7.4.2006 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. ROC 13019/05/SAB. DATED 30.6.2006 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 8.8.2006 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NO. ROC 4500/03/SAB (M) DATED 19.6.2006 EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE GENERAL/SPECIAL RULES. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C.No. 32477 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. W.P.C. is filed for direction to the Sabarimala Devaswom Board to refund the advance paid by the petitioner towards rent for the drier taken by the petitioner for drying coconut. According to the petitioner, petitioner purchased the right to collect coconut from the Sabarimala Temple during the season 2004. In order to facilitate easy transport, petitioner decided to convert raw coconut to copra by drying it electric driers. The driver was taken on hire by the petitioner from the Devaswom Board and an advance of Rs. 5 lakhs was collected towards rent for the drier. Petitioner's case is that driver was never used and Ext.P4 certificate issued by the KSEB shows that petitioner has not consumed power for the same. Petitioner's request for refund was rejected vide Ext.P10 by the Devaswom Board. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that reason stated in Ext.P10, which is loss to the 2 Board, is no justification to deny refund. We are of the view that petitioner can claim refund only if he is entitled to refund for non-user of the drier. Petitioner has no case that drier was taken on hire with a condition that if petitioner does not use the drier, refund of rent will be made by the Devaswom Board. Devaswom Board is entitled to charge rent for giving drier on hire to the petitioner. It is upto the petitioner to use it or not. If the petitioner did not want to use it, we do not know why the petitioner took the drier on hire. Counsel for the petitioner says that petitioner took the drier on hire only because it is compulsory that the purchaser of the coconut should take it on hire at the rate fixed by the Board. If this is the term of the contract, then the reason stated by the Law Officer in Ext.P10 that loss will be caused to the Board, if hire charges are not recovered, is perfectly justified. In other words, collection of hire charges is an integral part of the contract, by which right to collect coconut is given to the petitioner on condition of petitioner hiring the drier on rent. In this view of the matter, petitioner has no right to claim refund of the hire charges collected by the Devaswom Board. Petitioner after taking the contract with an 3 obligation to pay rent for the drier cannot later back out and challenge a term of the contract. W.P. is therefore devoid of any merit and is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V. K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 4