IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7779 of 2006(S) ------------------------- OA.566/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSEPH GEORGE, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SRI GEORGE JOSEPH, ASSISTANT FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, CMFRI MANDAPAM, RESIDING AT TYPE III/4, CMFRI QUARTERS, KASTURBA NAGAR, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.D.HEERA SMT.SUMY.P.BABY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 3. THE DIRECTOR, CENTERAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, POST BOX NO. 1603, NORTH POST OFFICE, KOCHI. 4. SCIENTIST-IN-CHARGE, CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE FISHERIES POST, CMFRI MANDAPAM CAMP, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC, ICAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPT. OF POSTS LETTER NO.4-5/2004-BLDG DATED 15.9.2004. EXT.P2: COPY OF CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KOCHI RULES FOR ALLOTMENT OF CMFRI RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION (ANNEXURE 20) EXT.P3: COPY OF THE GOVT.OF INDIA, DEPT OF POSTS LETTER NO.4-5/2004-BLDG DATED 17.6.2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ALLOTMENT OF RESIDENCIES) RULES 1975 (ANNEXURE A21) FRAMED BY RESPONDENT ICAR AND IN FORCE. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.566/05 FILED BEFORE the HON'BLE TRIBUNAL EXCEPT ANNEXURE 20 AND 21. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 8.9.2005 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT LESS ANNEXURE R4 AND R8. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COUNSEL'S STATEMENT DATED 2ND NOVEMBER, 2005 FILED BY THE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 6.1.2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.A.NO.566/2005. EXT.P9: COPY OF ORDER DATED 1.3.2006 IN O.A.NO.566/2005 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P10: COPY OF GOVT. OF INDIA ORDER NO.18011/1/99-POL.III. DATED 26.4.2002. EXT.P11: COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER NO.F(X)-99/11/1 DATED 24.7.2002 FIXING THE DAMAGE RENT FOR VARIOUS CITIES CLASSIFIED AS A1, A, B1, BII, C AND UNCLASSIFIED AREAS EXT.P12: COPY OF ORDER F.NO.3-9/05-IV.IV DATED 7.3.2006 ISSUED BY UNDER SECRETARY ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R1: COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 22.3.2006 EXT.R1(B): COPY OF THE VACATION REPORT DATED 20.5.2006 WPC.7779/06 EXT.R1(C): COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM ISSUE DBY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28.6.2001 EXT.R1(D): COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE ESTATE OFFICER OF THE ORGANIZATION BEARING NO.3-14/05-EST./4375 DATED 8/9.6.2005 EXT.R1(E): EXTRACT OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA ORDERS UNDER FR 45 A (VIII) DATED NIL. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.7779 OF 2006 (S) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.566/2005 dated 1.3.2006. The writ petitioner was the applicant in the above O.A. before the C.A.T and the respondents were the respondents therein. Copy of the O.A. is produced in this writ petition as Ext.P5. The relief sought in the O.A. was against the imposition of licence fee on him for the period he was occupying the quarters from 25.7.2004 to 26.5.2006. The petitioner, while working at Cochin was transferred to Mandapam near Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu and his head quarters was also shifted to that place on 26.11.2003. He should normally vacate the quarters within eight months, that is, atleast by 25.7.2004. Thereafter, he was made liable for licence fee. The impugned WPC.7779/06 2 proceedings as per which licence fee was levied were upheld by the CAT by Ext.P9 order. Therefore, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. There is dispute between the parties as to the rule which is governing the imposition of licence fee. According to the petitioner, it is Ext.P4 and according to the respondents, it is Ext.P2. After hearing the writ petitioner for some time, we are of the view that the correctness of the computation of the licence fee levied under Rules 45A/45B of the Fundamental Rules has to be examined by a competent superior authority. In this case, the levy has been imposed by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel on the either side told us that the Director General, ICAR can look into the grievance of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner pointed out that the Director General has the requisite power to relax the rules also. Mandapam is a remote area, and therefore, under compelling circumstances, petitioner continued occupying the quarters so WPC.7779/06 3 that his wife and three daughters can continue at Cochin. His three daughters were continuing their education in the educational institutions in Cochin. So, it was impossible for him to shift to Mandapam at the relevant time. He wanted extension of time only upto 31.3.2006, so that his daughters could complete their courses. So the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this was a fit case where the rules should have been relaxed. The petitioner may file a representation before the Director General, ICAR along with a copy of this judgment. In that event, the said Officer shall consider whether the levy of the licence fee proposed against the petitioner could be waived or relaxed. If any relief cannot be granted in this regard, the amount payable by him may be ordered to be collected in easy monthly instalments staggering the period upto his date of retirement. If such a representation is received by the Director General, the same shall be disposed of by the said Officer within three months WPC.7779/06 4 from the date of receipt of the same. The recovery of licence fee against the petitioner for the aforementioned period shall be kept in abeyance till the Director General of ICAR takes the decision as directed above. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR JUDGE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JUDGE prp